Wright writes.....

[chris p bacon]

On the subject of CDK/PDK  kits there are some things happening, You have to look elsewhere in the hobby to see that there are lots of modellers doing things for themselves 

 

How about this, was delivered just last Thursday, it's a 3D print of a Stirling G1.

 

Detail is excellent.

To make the variants within the class (apart from the short tank version) there is a sprue of the condensing gear as well as the chimneys

The cab is an insert so can be painted and further detailed if required before fitting

Body with the cab insert

 

So how did this come about? JCL (of this parish) wanted one and says he is not an acomplished kit builder but knows his way around a keyboard, so the logical step is to use the skills you know you have. It ended up as a group project with Jason, Mike Trice, Allan Sibley, Steve White and myself (about .00002% input) as we're all members of the GN society and want things that are just never going to be produced in RTR or even kit form.

 

And there is more to come.

 

 

[jwealleans]

This is what you were telling me about at the weekend?  Looks excellent. 

 

Which version of the G1 is it?  Reading through Richard Marsden's information, there were two iterations of G1, which became LNER classes G1 and G2?

[ROSSPOP]

I'm glad that this thread, in the main, exhorts folk to have a go at making things for themselves. Because of my preference for making locos and passenger-carrying rolling stock in 4mm scale, the emphasis has been on that, though the personal making of all things in railway modelling is to be encouraged. Recently, I visited a mate and he'd put in place a new signal box on his layout. I congratulated him on its appearance, only to be told that it was a one piece, resin-moulding from Hornby or Bachmann. As a 'layout building' it looked excellent, though really close-inspection revealed it to be a bit chunky in places. It appeared to be a GNR prototype, but it was painted in LMR maroon in part. It would have been of no use to me, unless it were specifically LB's GNR 'box, then I might have considered using it, albeit modified. But, even if it were, it wouldn't have been a Bob Dawson building. What I have is unique, the product of a highly-skilled friend (and his highly-skilled grandson), acquired, at least in part, by horse-trading, not just the wielding of the cheque book or wallet. It's so much more personal than just the buying of things, or at least to me. Which comes back again to my exhorting folk to have a go for themselves, or at least trade skills with those who can. 

 

Speaking of trading skills, does anyone know about the reliability of Fulgurex polarity-changing switches on the firm's point motors? On Sunday, when two friends and I (almost perfectly) ran the railway, a feed failed to the south end Down lay by. Not a problem, thought I, and investigated yesterday. The siding was fed via the switches on the appropriate motor (Norman Solomon told me to do that) and those switches appeared to need adjustment. I fiddled, with disastrous results. The switches are so flimsy and prone to pinging out. The result, a dead short on the frog when set for the main line! I can run everything via the Down slow (I'll have to today when other friends come), but what a poor design of switch it seems to me. Has anyone else had problems with these motors' switches? I admit, I'm a bit alarmed, because there are 27 of the motors in use (this is the first to fail). I'm contemplating fitting separate micro switches if necessary.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to say that I have been using Fulgorex point motors on my 7mm layout and they have been in use in my shed for the past two years with no problems whatsoever..........

 

What I did notice pre- fitting, is that full volts usage and they tended to get stuck in full travel......and less than full voltage and the micro- switches failed to `click` over every time.

 

My solution was to remove micro switches and re- drill their fixing holes a little bigger so that you can `angle` there final position slightly further towards centre as you tighten up.  You should then be able to hear the two `clicks` of the micro switches at each end of travel.

 

These motors benefit from some lubrication and some protective cover............

 

 

 

[chris p bacon]

This is what you were telling me about at the weekend?  Looks excellent. 

 

Which version of the G1 is it?  Reading through Richard Marsden's information, there were two iterations of G1, which became LNER classes G1 and G2?

They were Stirlings 766 class, 766-70, 821-830, 931-940 were built between 1889 and 1893 and the last 4 with short tanks 941-944 were built in 1895. I'm not sure about LNER classification as only 12 were on the books on 1/1/23 and the last went by Feb 1927

 

Jason has done the long tank version as it was the most common (and the one he wanted) mine will become 939 which ended as a Peterborough engine, there were plans to do the short tank but it's more complicated than just shortening them as there are many other differences.

[Brian Kirby]

Brian,

 

 

Do you mean a totally unpainted kit, or just the items you refer? One reason often cited for not building  models from kits is that it would be very difficult to approach the finish of RTR items.

 

 

Jol

Hi Jol,

    Earlier on in the discussion, somebody had expressed concern that the manufacturer's reputation for quality, might be damaged by bodged CKD construction. To counter this, I suggested the CKD version should be supplied un-painted, so as to draw a clear distinction between the two options, plus of course the painting could be a further challenge for the beginner. Would a decently DIY-painted loco be confused with the RTR output (?), I doubt it, besides if the painting is competent, chances are the construction is pretty decent too? I would also suggest any CKD kit box, is clearly marked by colour bands or flashes, or be printed a different colour, in a similar way to Hornby regular red boxes and those in Railroad yellow. What about soldering wires and pick-ups? Should there be any soldering at all, should wires be pre-soldered, or joined by some other method, like screw terminals?

                                Cheers, Brian.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Jol,

    Earlier on in the discussion, somebody had expressed concern that the manufacturer's reputation for quality, might be damaged by bodged CKD construction. To counter this, I suggested the CKD version should be supplied un-painted, so as to draw a clear distinction between the two options, plus of course the painting could be a further challenge for the beginner. Would a decently DIY-painted loco be confused with the RTR output (?), I doubt it, besides if the painting is competent, chances are the construction is pretty decent too? I would also suggest any CKD kit box, is clearly marked by colour bands or flashes, or be printed a different colour, in a similar way to Hornby regular red boxes and those in Railroad yellow. What about soldering wires and pick-ups? Should there be any soldering at all, should wires be pre-soldered, or joined by some other method, like screw terminals?

                                Cheers, Brian.

 

The instructions could be an interesting area too.  Having recently been involved with research etc on a loco model I was amazed to see the parts list (which came with the detail CADs) which, with different parts for detail variations plus left hand and right hand parts, gives a total number of parts running well into the 100s.  Putting that into assembly instructions - although the CAD drawings would obviously help for both referencing and placing parts - would be quite a task which would add to the overall cost.

 

It really depends what people are looking for with CKD but I would be very surprised if it did not cost more than a fully assembled model.  No - I'm not trying to put people off - because I think it's unavoidable that many most kit built locos are likely to be more expensive in terms of component cost than an r-t-r equivalent but it would undoubtedly affect the marketability of a CKD model.  Similarly it would probably cost more not to include the various detail variant sprues than it would be to include them and allow a choice for the purchaser.  Obviously things would not be so bad with older models with fewer separate parts but it still might not be as simple as it sounds.

 

So the important thing - and probably what dissuades manufacturers as much as some other reasons - is trying to see where a market exists for CKD or PKD models and how large that market would be.

[Focalplane]

Having slowly but surely built up a range of skills the hard way I am no longer looking for easy options.  This is obviously only a personal statement but does it typify what many older modellers think?  Along life's tricky path many of us learn the hard way from making mistakes but yearn to learn yet more without making those mistakes if at all possible.  In attempting to attract younger modellers I don't think that making things easier is necessarily what they are looking for.  I know nothing about computer games (well, I did try the birds vs pigs thing for a short while, until I got tired of it) but younger generations seem to thrive on attaining ever more challenging levels of difficulty.  Perhaps it is in our DNA and is not something that should be dumbed down.  As Dr. G-B said a page or so back, modern education is more about "Facebook and mithering" than actual learning.  I would add that focusing on how to pass tests and give schools an edge in the national ratings is also not about Education with the capital E.

 

Through some quirk of rapid evolution our species has developed an incredible brain power.  It should be used to the full so that regression does not hand us back to from where we came.

 

Having re-read this post I have decided I am thinking too much and need to get back to working on the "dummy" inside motion within the LMS Compound kit. . . . . . .

[Headstock]

Having slowly but surely built up a range of skills the hard way I am no longer looking for easy options.  This is obviously only a personal statement but does it typify what many older modellers think?  Along life's tricky path many of us learn the hard way from making mistakes but yearn to learn yet more without making those mistakes if at all possible.  In attempting to attract younger modellers I don't think that making things easier is necessarily what they are looking for.  I know nothing about computer games (well, I did try the birds vs pigs thing for a short while, until I got tired of it) but younger generations seem to thrive on attaining ever more challenging levels of difficulty.  Perhaps it is in our DNA and is not something that should be dumbed down.  As Dr. G-B said a page or so back, modern education is more about "Facebook and mithering" than actual learning.  I would add that focusing on how to pass tests and give schools an edge in the national ratings is also not about Education with the capital E.

 

Through some quirk of rapid evolution our species has developed an incredible brain power.  It should be used to the full so that regression does not hand us back to from where we came.

 

Having re-read this post I have decided I am thinking too much and need to get back to working on the "dummy" inside motion within the LMS Compound kit. . . . . . .

Hi focal plane,

 

being an O gauge modeller have you tried any of JLTRT products? I have built some of their Gresley carriages, they are superb representations of the prototype. They are mixed media kits that are incredible easy to put together. I would put them close to the top of the pile as regards model railway kits that I have built. . Anybody who has successfully completed a simple Airfix kit could build one as a first railway modelling project. This is because a lot of thought has gone into the choice of appropriate media for the parts, and the clever way they are constructed. I don't think that making things easier is a problem, quite often it should be required because a lot of kits are a pain to build due to poor design or inappropriate materials. I'm currently building a kit were just about every fold line in the etch has broken at the seem. As a resulted this has required the manufacture of stronger replacement parts, and  other parts being but soldered. It is certainly more of a challenge then if the kit went together as designed. However not the sort of experience that would attract anybody new to kit building.

[micklner]

Hi Jol,

    Earlier on in the discussion, somebody had expressed concern that the manufacturer's reputation for quality, might be damaged by bodged CKD construction. To counter this, I suggested the CKD version should be supplied un-painted, so as to draw a clear distinction between the two options, plus of course the painting could be a further challenge for the beginner. Would a decently DIY-painted loco be confused with the RTR output (?), I doubt it, besides if the painting is competent, chances are the construction is pretty decent too? I would also suggest any CKD kit box, is clearly marked by colour bands or flashes, or be printed a different colour, in a similar way to Hornby regular red boxes and those in Railroad yellow. What about soldering wires and pick-ups? Should there be any soldering at all, should wires be pre-soldered, or joined by some other method, like screw terminals?

                                Cheers, Brian.

 

Quite simple if the range ever existed call it by a different name. How many millions of Airfix kits have been bodged over the years they are still here selling them!  As to soldering supply them with a ready built chassis end of problem.

[t-b-g]

Having slowly but surely built up a range of skills the hard way I am no longer looking for easy options.  This is obviously only a personal statement but does it typify what many older modellers think?  Along life's tricky path many of us learn the hard way from making mistakes but yearn to learn yet more without making those mistakes if at all possible.  In attempting to attract younger modellers I don't think that making things easier is necessarily what they are looking for.  I know nothing about computer games (well, I did try the birds vs pigs thing for a short while, until I got tired of it) but younger generations seem to thrive on attaining ever more challenging levels of difficulty.  Perhaps it is in our DNA and is not something that should be dumbed down.  As Dr. G-B said a page or so back, modern education is more about "Facebook and mithering" than actual learning.  I would add that focusing on how to pass tests and give schools an edge in the national ratings is also not about Education with the capital E.

 

Through some quirk of rapid evolution our species has developed an incredible brain power.  It should be used to the full so that regression does not hand us back to from where we came.

 

Having re-read this post I have decided I am thinking too much and need to get back to working on the "dummy" inside motion within the LMS Compound kit. . . . . . .

 

Well said that man! The most enjoyable bits of the hobby for me are those where I set out knowing what I want to produce but not being 100% sure how I am going to get there. The thought process of deciding what materials and techniques to use and the satisfaction that comes when it comes out right are what makes the hobby what it is to me.

 

A kit that comprises half a dozen parts that clip together and that you couldn't get wrong no matter how hard you tried would not appeal to me in the slightest.

 

Which is why I am scratchbuilding my first 7mm loco. Working with materials that I am not familiar with (compared with 4mm it is like armour plate!) requiring new soldering techniques, I am having great fun and learning at the same time. 

[Brian Kirby]

At least one of the leading manufacturers, blamed the rising cost of labour for assembling models in the factory, for the increased prices in the shops. The more fine detail and separate parts to fit, the higher the cost. The CKD option avoids all this completely.

Lots of kit instructions, and the historical data on your RTR model's box, are often provided by a willing amateur, who either does for free as a favour, or receives a modest gratuity in kind. Putting component parts into a kit-building box or tray, does not require skilled labour. If we combine all three of these factors, there is no way of the price being higher than the RTR version. I wish people could think more positively. I believe it's worth trying an initial one-off sales experiment, if it flops, forget it, sell the parts off cheap. On the other hand, if it works . . . . . . .

                                                                   Cheers, Brian.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Brian Kirby

[billbedford]

Go on then.....

[Focalplane]

Hi focal plane,

 

being an O gauge modeller have you tried any of JLTRT products? I have built some of their Gresley carriages, they are superb representations of the prototype. They are mixed media kits that are incredible easy to put together. I would put them close to the top of the pile as regards model railway kits that I have built. . Anybody who has successfully completed a simple Airfix kit could build one as a first railway modelling project. This is because a lot of thought has gone into the choice of appropriate media for the parts, and the clever way they are constructed. I don't think that making things easier is a problem, quite often it should be required because a lot of kits are a pain to build due to poor design or inappropriate materials. I'm currently building a kit were just about every fold line in the etch has broken at the seem. As a resulted this has required the manufacture of stronger replacement parts, and  other parts being but soldered. It is certainly more of a challenge then if the kit went together as designed. However not the sort of experience that would attract anybody new to kit building.

 

Andrew, to answer your question - not yet!  I have several JLTRT coaches on my buy list but coaches are a lower priority at the moment.  I am building a Sidelines LMS III kitchen car when in the mood and it is slowly going together well.  I have visited JLTRT's stand at several exhibitions and like what I see.  My Midlander rake can be made up using Heljan (RTR), Sidelines and JLTRT (kits).  The Bushbury Joob is crying out for something to pull!  As far as locos are concerned, the JLTRT Midland 0-6-0s would fit my preferences.  That being said, I am not averse to GW locos at all having spent more time traveling on their historical lines than any other company's.

 

I think Gauge O kits tend to be, from my limited experience, well designed and relatively easy to put together though they are not without challenges at times.  As "t-b-g"notes above, you do have to get your head around thicker materials but the advantage is that the parts are easier to see and hold!

 

Sorry to learn of you current experience, more often than not it seems to me that the fold etches need to be deepened.  Paul

[Brian Kirby]

Go on then.....

I was half-expecting a comment like that, so predictable. I have absolutely no intention of entering the world of kit manufacturing, far too risky a business. This CKD discussion was supposedly about encouraging more people, especially those new to modelling, to try tackling kit-building, rather than just relying on RTR, or playing with their smartphones and computer games. Who knows, after successfully building their own CKD loco, they might have gone on to purchase some lovely resin coach kits, to run behind it. I was hoping we could have interested one of the larger manufacturers into trying CKD, but if they read this CKD thread, all they would see is overwhelming negativity.

                                                                 Cheers, Brian. 

[Headstock]

Andrew, to answer your question - not yet!  I have several JLTRT coaches on my buy list but coaches are a lower priority at the moment.  I am building a Sidelines LMS III kitchen car when in the mood and it is slowly going together well.  I have visited JLTRT's stand at several exhibitions and like what I see.  My Midlander rake can be made up using Heljan (RTR), Sidelines and JLTRT (kits).  The Bushbury Joob is crying out for something to pull!  As far as locos are concerned, the JLTRT Midland 0-6-0s would fit my preferences.  That being said, I am not averse to GW locos at all having spent more time traveling on their historical lines than any other company's.

 

I think Gauge O kits tend to be, from my limited experience, well designed and relatively easy to put together though they are not without challenges at times.  As "t-b-g"notes above, you do have to get your head around thicker materials but the advantage is that the parts are easier to see and hold!

 

Sorry to learn of you current experience, more often than not it seems to me that the fold etches need to be deepened.  Paul

Hi Paul,

 

You really feel like a well cared for costumer when you build a JLTRT kit, a pleasure in itself as a kit builder. It was a bit of a culture shock returning to the make do and mend of 4mm. As regards the etch lines, yes I agree, I've never come across etch bend line failure in a kit before, ah well make do and mend. I have a RTR O gauge Joob myself, If the weather ever improves it may get a run out in the garden later in the summer.

[Mark Forrest]

I was half-expecting a comment like that, so predictable. I have absolutely no intention of entering the world of kit manufacturing, far too risky a business. This CKD discussion was supposedly about encouraging more people, especially those new to modelling, to try tackling kit-building, rather than just relying on RTR, or playing with their smartphones and computer games. Who knows, after successfully building their own CKD loco, they might have gone on to purchase some lovely resin coach kits, to run behind it. I was hoping we could have interested one of the larger manufacturers into trying CKD, but if they read this CKD thread, all they would see is overwhelming negativity.

Cheers, Brian.

I would imagine that if one of the larger manufacturers were tempted to launch a "CKD" range, they might do a little more research than just reading this thread. Suspect they'd come to the same conclusion though; little demand, slim margins.

[Focalplane]

As Tony W rightly says (no pun intended) his hugely important discussion forum, Wright Writes, is primarily geared to 4mm OO gauge locomotive kit construction as well as operation of a large prototype based layout on which to run his and guests' trains.  When I post something on Gauge O I feel like an impostor but I know that Tony sees his "church" as being much more catholic because he is such a keen modeller.  Likewise I know next to nothing about the eastern side of the UK except for an illicit cycle trip when 12 years old that encompassed Doncaster, Lincoln and a few other trainspotting locations.  But I get the necessary "fix" of stimulus when I follow threads such as the one on CKD currently running.  It doesn't matter if I agree with the CKD concept, I just think that without lively thought on the processes behind our hobby, our modelling lives would be rather dull.

 

My only venture into CKD comes from the underpinning of my rather small layout - three IKEA cabinets that have finally been completed after finding out that the remaining trim is now kept in stock at Montpellier and not costing an extra €96 in shipping charges.  IKEA instructions are infamous yet I find them easy to follow and the design behind them is logical and cost effective.  Should IKEA enter the model railway arena, then?  No, I don't think so!

 

I have been an early supporter of 3D printing (I had shares in Dassault Systemes for a while) and really like what I see as it affects our hobby.  Courtesy of Alan Buttler I can even drive my own trains at almost any scale supported by his 3D printer.  The rather embryonic looking Stirling G1 is a brave entry into this new world and I imagine this is the way forward for those wishing to model unusual locomotive classes.  Resin is something I have no experience with but clearly this is also a good competitor to 3D printing - perhaps they overlap in the design process?

 

Meantime with my hereditary genes firmly founded (again, pardon the pun) in the Birmingham brass industry, I rather enjoy brass and nickel silver kits.  Each to his own.

[Tony Wright]

Well said that man! The most enjoyable bits of the hobby for me are those where I set out knowing what I want to produce but not being 100% sure how I am going to get there. The thought process of deciding what materials and techniques to use and the satisfaction that comes when it comes out right are what makes the hobby what it is to me.

 

A kit that comprises half a dozen parts that clip together and that you couldn't get wrong no matter how hard you tried would not appeal to me in the slightest.

 

Which is why I am scratchbuilding my first 7mm loco. Working with materials that I am not familiar with (compared with 4mm it is like armour plate!) requiring new soldering techniques, I am having great fun and learning at the same time. 

Tony,

 

You are a most-experienced kit-builder/scratch-builder, and I can understand your not being interested in a kit of parts which just clip together and couldn't go wrong, but how typical are you (or I) in this hobby? Not many, unlike you, could build to a professional standard, but would still like to build something for themselves. 

 

Having just started (pictures to follow) Bill's resin carriage kits, though they comprise more than half a dozen pieces, it seems to me that one would have to try extremely hard to get them wrong. The fit of parts is as near perfect as possible (irrespective of the media), in fact the main components hold together with friction alone. Ben Jones has asked me to write a piece on these carriages, which, I hope, will encourage folk to have a go at making such things. It would be a bit weird for me to state that 'because I'm an experienced kit-builder, I didn't find the products appealing in the slightest because it was impossible to get them wrong.'

 

It seems to me that kits using more modern (different?) materials than the 'traditional' ones could just be the way to get folk to make things for themselves. I've built far too many locos and carriages 'in spite' of what was provided, and, I admit, I've derived a certain (one might say) perverse satisfaction in succeeding. But too many kits lie abandoned, unfinished in dusty boxes; a testament to either how bad they were and/or, how way beyond the abilities of their builders they were.

 

Speaking of professional modellers. This Fulgurex point switching has got me baffled. Do you fancy a visit down at some future date?  A chequebook modeller me!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited May 25, 2016 by Tony Wright

[mullie]

Talking of building things, this has taken around 8 months to get to this point and I hope it is beginning to catch the flavour of a Great Eastern station in the early 50s. Some is scratch built in plasticard, coffee stirrers and odd bits and pieces the rest I butchered from Wills parts. I have posted an earlier shot of progress some time ago.

 

 

 

Building it has given me pleasure, one of my first scratch built structures in around fifteen years.

 

Martyn

Edited May 24, 2016 by mullie

[DougN]

Tony, 

 

A Friend of mine once had Fulgurex and other point motors on a layout of Chalbury(in EM)  here in Melbourne and had nothing but problems with the switching. Then he changed all the point motors over to Tortoises which solved some of the problems. Another large layout  of Brent, started after Charlbury, in finescale OO went straight to the Tortoises and never had a problem. The layout still exists but I think it might be onto its 3rd or 4 owner. I have not seen it in years. I know this doesn't solve your problem however it might be a more reliable solution as the others die. 

[robmcg]

While I appreciate that this thread  is all about the pleasures, frustrations and rewards of hands-on modelling, I would like to sneak this picture in of a very recent RTR offering from Hornby.

 

It is special to me because the standard of paint and finish is to my eye simply stunning, my photo via daylight plus a reading lamp does not quite do it justice, and just looking at the model fills me with admiration for the designers, tool-makers and assembly people who make such superb manufactured models for about £100.

 

For once Tony I feel I don't need to create a picture with added steam and smoke, nor grey skies and digital backdrops, it quite beautiful just as an unadorned photo of a model.  No chequebook stuff either, it's all done by card and other methods these days!  

For me just getting it out of its box without damaging it is an achievement.

 

Brilliant thread, most interesting, and a lovely standard of English, most of the time.

 

 

For what it's worth,  C&L code 75 bullhead track by hand...   and the photo is by 'half-frame' Canon EOS-M with 18-55mm kit  lens at about 40mm, f29, touch-screen zone focus, ISO 100, 20 secs., delayed release. 50% daylight, 50% tungsten, auto white balance. Cropped and sharpened afterwards with laptop.

 

Cheers

Edited May 25, 2016 by robmcg

[Tony Wright]

Tony, 

 

A Friend of mine once had Fulgurex and other point motors on a layout of Chalbury(in EM)  here in Melbourne and had nothing but problems with the switching. Then he changed all the point motors over to Tortoises which solved some of the problems. Another large layout  of Brent, started after Charlbury, in finescale OO went straight to the Tortoises and never had a problem. The layout still exists but I think it might be onto its 3rd or 4 owner. I have not seen it in years. I know this doesn't solve your problem however it might be a more reliable solution as the others die. 

Thanks Doug,

 

I hope I'm not sitting on a potential 'time bomb'. Because I installed all the point motors and installed all the droppers and feeds, I thought I'd be able to solve any potential problems. However, it was Norman Solomon who connected all the points up. It seems that the earlier Fulgurex point motors (made in Switzerland?) had a hard plastic support for the switches. Hard, and resistant, to an extent, to soldering heat. Since production moved to China, the plastic is so heat non-resistant, that merely dwelling with the iron for a moment can result in the plastic pillars distorting, thus affecting the switches. I know when Graham Nicholas installed the signal mechanisms, for those worked via the Fulugurex switches I had to be most careful soldering on the wires. Even then, some of the switches are right at the end of their travel (because the pillars distorted?) 

 

I find this situation very annoying. Without appearing pompous (I hope) I can usually fix anything that goes wrong on my model railway myself. I'm happy to trade skills with those more adept at a discipline than I am, but I can still do most things. Reports of Fulgurex motors from years ago still working perfectly are all well and good, but mine are the newer ones. In fairness, since they were installed eight years ago, all have worked well (apart from one I ruined by drilling through it installing a telegraph pole!), but the whole design seems prone to potential failure, especially those 'ping-into-oblivion' switches. In time, I think I'll abandon the Fulgurex switches and install non-failing separate micro-switches - if my knees will take it. Do other point motors (of any kind) need covers to protect them from dirt/dust? The Peco ones on Stoke and Charwelton (hundreds of them) never needed special care, despite tens of thousands of miles bouncing around in the backs of vans. The Seep motors I use in the fiddle yard have no covering (though I don't use their switches) and all the dozens of micro-switches sit on the baseboard tops, entirely uncovered. 

 

Though it pains me to say this, not only might I by-pass the switches on the Fulgurex motors, but I might replace them all entirely, given time and finance. I know they're Norman Solomon's motor of choice, but I doubt they're mine.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited May 25, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

 

While I appreciate that this thread  is all about the pleasures, frustrations and rewards of hands-on modelling, I would like to sneak this picture in of a very recent RTR offering from Hornby.

 

It is special to me because the standard of paint and finish is to my eye simply stunning, my photo via daylight plus a reading lamp does not quite do it justice, and just looking at the model fills me with admiration for the designers, tool-makers and assembly people who make such superb manufactured models for about £100.

 

For once Tony I feel I don't need to create a picture with added steam and smoke, nor grey skies and digital backdrops, it quite beautiful just as an unadorned photo of a model.  No chequebook stuff either, it's all done by card and other methods these days!  

For me just getting it out of its box without damaging it is an achievement.

 

Brilliant thread, most interesting, and a lovely standard of English, most of the time.

 

116_SR_T9_portrait60_1ab_r1200.jpg

 

For what it's worth,  C&L code 75 bullhead track by hand...   and the photo is by 'half-frame' Canon EOS-M with 18-55mm kit  lens at about 40mm, f29, touch-screen zone focus, ISO 100, 20 secs., delayed release. 50% daylight, 50% tungsten, auto white balance. Cropped and sharpened afterwards with laptop.

 

Cheers

 

Robbie,

 

Many thanks.

 

It is a beautiful model indeed. I doubt, particularly with regard to the finish, none but the very best of model painters could get anywhere near it. 

 

I think, for just a model-shot, an entirely white background  works best (at least for me and product shots for the magazine).

 

 

Like this, a shot of Heljan's latest O Gauge Warship (this end without the windscreens popped out). Also for what it's worth, Nikon D3, Nikon 18-35mm lens (set on 35mm), F29 aperture and half a second exposure beneath a pair of Interfit Super 5 heads (all bulbs switched on). Though it was shot against a white background, to make sure the white was absolute, I made a clipping path around the loco and flood-filled it afterwards.

 

As I've said before, I find your photographic effects quite brilliant in their application; producing something akin to a painting. However, as product shots (which, in fairness, they're not meant to be) or catalogue shots, I'm not sure. But, please, keep on taking, producing them and showing them on this thread.

 

I don't see anything inherently wrong in folk buying (by cheque or card) models, either RTR, RTP or commissioned. If the money has been honestly-earned then I, or no one else, have the right to deny the purchases their right to buy what they wish. That said, and this is said with the greatest of respect to you and others, I'd much sooner see a T9 which someone has made themselves. I understand your difficulties, and I'm staggered at your photographic achievements but I, if I wished, or anyone else, could own the 'same' T9. It is, of course, a personal view. 

 

Where work is commissioned (hypocrite mode at the ready!), I think that's different. The buildings on my layout are unique, and they have a unique story to tell. Because I didn't build them, I cannot tell the story first-hand, but I can tell the story of how, in the main, they were 'bartered' for. Where folk buy just about everything ready-made or pay folk to alter them or have others do just about everything for them can result in some high-standard modelling on show. However, as I've said many times before, the guy/girl who does it for themselves (as you do in your photography) is deserving of much greater praise, even though the end results might not be to the highest standard. Which, I hope, this thread is all about. 

 

Kindest regards,

 

Tony. 

[Ravenser]

Kits can be had for contemporary stock, though not necessarily the all the latest units, from the likes of Bratchell, DC kits and Britannia Pacific Models. However judging by the number of hits in searches they don't seem to have a great following on RMWeb. All three companies make some sort of provision for applying modern multi-coloured liveries, which may, or may not, say something about the level of skills required to produce well finished model of modern stock.

 

DC Kits have been quite heavily affected by recent RTR releases to the point where Charlie Petty seems more or less to have given up on the kit building side.

 

Bratchill are apparently simpler kits to build but in my limited experience much more problematic. My 150 is still unfinished - everything below the floor pan had to be substituted (underframe boxes for a 3rd rail EMU do not a Sprinter make, and nor do the wrong bogies), an interior provided and for a decent result etched window frames and replacement glazing sourced. I lost one etched window frame when it took a tumble at a show, Jim Smith -Wright isn't doing the etches, the glazing was/will be a Shawplan test product they never marketed , and the underframe castings were ex MTK from the late Alastair Rolfe.  

 

And yes, I was swallowing hard about being able to do a decent paint job, given that I'm frightened  of rail blue/grey. I have a set of Fox transfers for the blue/white bodyside bands which seems the only sane way to go.

 

But it's unfinished, and without a replacement etched window frame likely to stay that way. Meanwhile a Bachmann 150 has been running on the layout for several years, and runs very well indeed (better than I can hope from a Beetle under a 2 car unit , if I'm honest). And the finish is excellent.

 

The rest of the Bratchill range is EMUs - third rail is do-able, but 25kV overhead EMUs require a lot of extra work building all the knitting. I have a long track record of layout projects where the wires never went up (If I do another tram layout it will be LCC conduit. That's certain - I swear it on the Tower E1 kits in the cupboard)

 

And, yes, I must finish the 128 , but at least it's going to be just a blast of rail blue from a can (As will be the DC Kits Cravens when I finally build it. Must sort out the Pacer I started first though)

 

Kettles are normally black, frequently plain black. I can do that. The likes of NSE "toothpaste" frighten me (Guess who's putting steam corridor stock into maroon rather than face carmine and cream....)

 

Building 4 track headspan OHLE equipment such as is shown in Tony Wright's photo of Little Bytham is "interesting". Getting the masts to withstand the tensioning necessary to keep the wire headspans taut might be challenging

Edited May 25, 2016 by Ravenser

[Stanier16]

Tony,

 

I attended the recent Stamford exhibition and was able to pick up one of the LNER 02's that the Club was selling on your behalf, Aside from the marvellous bargain achieved, I just wanted to thank you for the repairs you made to the excellent model, it runs like a dream.

 

Best regards

 

Gary Burford