Wright writes.....

[Mallard60022]

It can be done, or, at least, I've done it. 

 

DJH used to send me bags of castings, sheets of etchings, some rudimentary drawings and request I build the new loco kit and write the instructions as I went along. The last two I did this for were the A2/2 and the Brighton Atlantic. I'd take photographs as I went along and the complete model was then sent back to DJH. 

 

Amazingly, everyone I've spoken to who have built the kits reckon they got on all right with them - probably because (as I always do) they ignored any instructions. 

 

I suppose it's symptomatic of the decline in the kit-building world that the likes of DJH are investing in no new 4mm loco kits, nor have done since 2003. Who can blame them? Having had a really great time at the Southwold Show over the weekend, Mo and I managed to sell every last one of the late John Brown's kit-built locos. One was a J11; an old BEC kit on a re-wheeled Tri-ang chassis. It was competently made (though there were one or two detail anomalies) and ran really well on its Romford wheels. We got £30.00 for it. Just on the stage was a retailer selling brand-new Bachmann RTR J11s (perfect in every way?) for under £50.00! I think I did well.

 

I'll post a report on the Southwold Show later.  

Ok Tony I'll put it short and sweet. I have tried building some DJH kits with the original Instructions. Ouch.

Then I have built a couple of ER Pacifics with your Instructions. Yippee.

Phil

[grob1234]

Tony, did you write the instructions for the DJH A1/3? Your name appears on the foreword, but not sure if you did the instructions? If so, I'm about to put them to the test in my latest build.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, did you write the instructions for the DJH A1/3? Your name appears on the foreword, but not sure if you did the instructions? If so, I'm about to put them to the test in my latest build.

Tom,

 

I didn't write the A1/A3 instructions, though, as you say, my name is on a little piece of 'generic' instructions. 

 

The business about kit instructions (and kits themselves) has come up on many occasions; quite frequently on this thread. I've no wish to carry on with the debate because most of it (if not all) will have been covered before. However, a few personal points might be of interest.

 

There's no doubt that some instructions have been dire, particularly in the past. They've been badly prepared, misleading even and often written in the most dismal English. Since from a very early stage I decided that instructions (good or bad) were not for me, then I've just gone on and made each loco 'by the seat of my pants' as it were. That's always suited me, but I wouldn't offer the dismissing of all instructions as good advice. 

 

Some kits have 'matched' their dire instructions, and, as I've said, we've been there before. 

 

Preparing good instructions takes a great deal of time and expertise. Not only that, at which level does one aim them? A certain amount of (prototype) knowledge has to be assumed and a degree of building experience expected, particularly with the more complex subjects (especially with regard to big tender locos with outside valve gear). That said, Martin Finney once showed me one of his kits (a GWR Prairie) put together by a complete novice. I didn't disbelieve him, but I would say that was extraordinary, for the model was very well-made. I've always put the likes of Finney kits beyond me, and I've struggled with the two Brassmasters' loco kits I've built. I've never made a Malcolm Mitchell kit. 

 

Speaking with many modellers at Southwold over the weekend, the same opinion keeps on coming up - that is the perceived demise in kit-building. With regard to the large OO layout under construction at Southwold, though much of the layout work was scratch-built/adapted, what was running on it almost without exception, as far as I could see, was just out-of-the-box unaltered RTR. It could well be that time has been spent on the layout rather than the stock, so I'll watch further developments with interest.

 

As I've mentioned in my previous post, the layouts at Southwold where the locos/stock had been built/modified (out of necessity) appealed to me the most, though, I concede, I'm most interested in that constructional aspect of the hobby. The fact that they were also beautifully observed also helped.

 

Since we tend to speak most of all with folk of much-the-same-opinion, it could well be that my perception of the demise of kit-building is a bit askew. In a way, I sometimes wonder whether I really care. I'd better explain. I have more than enough loco/stock kits to last way beyond my time on this planet. Over the weekend, I bought more solder, flux, brass/nickel silver bits and pieces, sets of frames, handrail pillars, wheels and what have you (I already have enough motors/gearboxes). As long as I have electricity, do I mind if the kit side of the hobby disappears completely? I know that sounds a bit like 'I'm all right, Jack', but the same opinion applies to what the RTR boys are considering bringing out. So what if a Hornby B12/3 could be obtained for £120.00? I took mine, and that cost me over four times that amount in the price of component parts and Ian Rathbone's painting, but that's not the point. I built mine, and that's more important.

 

Someone once said to me in response to being told to 'build a kit' by someone on this thread 'What about those who can't?' What could I say? I think my answer was along the lines of 'tough'. Since when has it been enshrined in the lore of this hobby that all are equal and all have the right to have what they want? 

 

I have to say I'm immensely encouraged when the likes of yourself produce such lovely kit-built work. Taking my 'selfish' hat off, you have years of building ahead of you, so I hope the traditional kits survive. If I can help others with their kit-building, then so much the better, but I still think the builders are in a (diminishing?) minority. Perhaps it was always thus. And, I hope my trying to stifle a yawn was not too apparent recently when I was told by one chap how pleased he was to have so many RTR locos/items of stock modified by others for him or locos/items of stock made by others for him!

 

Keep up the good work my friend.  

[allan downes]

Many years ago Graham Beaumont ( never been seen since he sold Jidenco by me or anyone else ) and myself announced to the late C J Freezer  that we were going to build the first full P4 layout, call it Candleford Mill and where it was pre booked by John Anson to appear at Central Hall. The P4 World couldn't wait, my ego even less.

 

So, Graham aquired all the necessary templates and components from the P4 Society and duly built the trackwork, converted all the locos and rolling stock to run on P4, placed it all on the track for testing, sneezed, and it all fell off !

 

Well, it only took the slightest knock to derail everything and, with Westminster only a week away, it just wasn't on, P4 or otherwise, it HAD to run so, in desperation we ripped up all the trackwork that was imprisoned in rock hard ballast and replaced it with Peco just in time to load it into the hired truck and set it up at Central Hall.

 

Well, it ran, and ran extremely well and even John Craven photographed it to include in a book he was writing on railway modelling ( I had to buy my own copy ) and, while most of the public were quite happy with it, the P4 Society most certainly  weren't especially in light of all the publicity that it was given in the Railway Modeller - "... the first fully operational P4 layout will appear at Central Hall, blah, blah, blah " - and was also written up as so in the programme. 

 

Anyway, and needless to say, The P4 Society hasn't spoken to me since nor to Graham Beaumont either - wherever he is.

 

However, The late Sidney Pritchard couldn't wait to get his hands on it, gave us 800 quid for it and when the show finished, bundled the lot into the back of the Peco van and later set it up in a purpose built room down at the Pecorama exhibition in Devon where it lived for 17 years without anything ever falling off either it or he himself !

 

Allan

Edited August 7, 2017 by allan downes

[Poggy1165]

In an ideal world, every kit would come with fully detailed instructions, with illustrations and drawings, and with several prototype photos.

 

In the real world, this would increase the price of kits very significantly. I have a suspicion/theory, call it what you will, that many of those people best equipped to produce kits are not very good at writing instructions. Writing is a much undervalued skill, because we can (pretty much) all write. However, to write clear, unequivocal instructions for something as complicated as a model railway kit is no small task. There are people out there who manage it, but they are very much in the minority. 

[allan downes]

Typically it seems to be be " Stick A to B and if it doesn't fit, try  sticking B to A "

 

Or.  " Find a part that looks like A and stick it to a part that looks like B. These will look incredibly  like C and D but possibly E and F depending on the batch number or the wattage  of your bench lamp "

 

Also. " With a little bit of work and plenty of filing the finished model can look like something surprisingly familiar with the picture on the box "

 

As kit building became ever more popular, my very very late associate and friend,  Collon Massingham  of El Crappo Kits, improved on the above by writing instructions in Hindu and Swahili  for reasons only known to himself. 

 

Allan

 

Edited because nothing would stick together regardless as to who wrote it - or who didn't.

Edited August 7, 2017 by allan downes

[Tony Wright]

Many years ago Graham Beaumont ( never been seen since he sold Jidenco by me or anyone else ) and myself announced to the late C J Freezer  that we were going to build the first full P4 layout, call it Candleford Mill and where it was pre booked by John Anson to appear at Central Hall. The P4 World couldn't wait, my ego even less.

 

So, Graham aquired all the necessary templates and components from the P4 Society and duly built the trackwork, converted all the locos and rolling stock to run on P4, placed it all on the track for testing, sneezed, and it all fell off !

 

Well, it only took the slightest knock to derail everything and, with Westminster only a week away, it just wasn't on, P4 or otherwise, it HAD to run so, in desperation we ripped up all the trackwork that was imprisoned in rock hard ballast and replaced it with Peco just in time to load it into the hired truck and set it up at Central Hall.

 

Well, it ran, and ran extremely well and even John Craven photographed it to include in a book he was writing on railway modelling ( I had to buy my own copy ) and, while most of the public were quite happy with it, the P4 Society most certainly  weren't especially in light of all the publicity that it was given in the Railway Modeller - "... the first fully operational P4 layout will appear at Central Hall, blah, blah, blah " - and was also written up as so in the programme. 

 

Anyway, and needless to say, The P4 Society hasn't spoken to me since nor to Graham Beaumont either - wherever he is.

 

However, The late Sidney Pritchard couldn't wait to get his hands on it, gave us 800 quid for it and when the show finished, bundled the lot into the back of the Peco van and later set it up in a purpose built room down at the Pecorama exhibition in Devon where it lived for 17 years without anything ever falling off either it or he himself !

 

Allan

Please don't disturb another hornets' nest, Allan. 

 

Believe it or not, I get on very well with many guys who model in P4. And, Jeff Day's wonderful layout over the weekend proved to me (if it needed proving) that P4 can be made to work perfectly, under exhibition conditions as well. Not only that, when I get my camera down to track level, the accurate gauge and length of axles on locos/stock is immediately apparent, and far superior to the effect on my own trainset. 

 

The following pictures (I hope) illustrate this point well. 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no doubting in the pictures above that this is the correct gauge.

 

In comparison/contrast...................

 

 

 

 

Even though Norman Solomon's OO trackwork is as 'perfect' as can be, it's still narrow gauge. That said, and it's said in defence of all those who model big, fast, main line layouts on which are running big locomotives hauling long and heavy trains at high speed, with absolute reliability, I've never seen the likes of what I (and the group I'm with) model, modelled in the most accurate 4mm gauge. That I've never seen it doesn't mean it can't be done or doesn't exist, but it's just my own experience. That personal experience has shown me that with one exception (Adavoyle), all P4 layouts run really slowly. This is correct, since almost all I've ever seen depict branch line termini or (very) secondary lines, with short trains and small locos. 

 

Whatever the gauge differences, I hope you like the architectural modelling on both systems. 

 

And, make sure you have your smoke canister and veil at the ready!

[Hroth]

Many years ago Graham Beaumont ( never been seen since he sold Jidenco by me or anyone else ) and myself announced to the late C J Freezer  that we were going to build the first full P4 layout, call it Candleford Mill and where it was pre booked by John Anson to appear at Central Hall. The P4 World couldn't wait, my ego even less.

 

So, Graham aquired all the necessary templates and components from the P4 Society and duly built the trackwork, converted all the locos and rolling stock to run on P4, placed it all on the track for testing, sneezed, and it all fell off !

 

Well, it only took the slightest knock to derail everything and, with Westminster only a week away, it just wasn't on, P4 or otherwise, it HAD to run so, in desperation we ripped up all the trackwork that was imprisoned in rock hard ballast and replaced it with Peco just in time to load it into the hired truck and set it up at Central Hall.

 

Well, it ran, and ran extremely well and even John Craven photographed it to include in a book he was writing on railway modelling ( I had to buy my own copy ) and, while most of the public were quite happy with it, the P4 Society most certainly  weren't especially in light of all the publicity that it was given in the Railway Modeller - "... the first fully operational P4 layout will appear at Central Hall, blah, blah, blah " - and was also written up as so in the programme. 

 

Anyway, and needless to say, The P4 Society hasn't spoken to me since nor to Graham Beaumont either - wherever he is.

 

However, The late Sidney Pritchard couldn't wait to get his hands on it, gave us 800 quid for it and when the show finished, bundled the lot into the back of the Peco van and later set it up in a purpose built room down at the Pecorama exhibition in Devon where it lived for 17 years without anything ever falling off either it or he himself !

 

Allan

Picked up a copy of the John Craven book ("How About Railway Modelling") from a NT house I visited during my summer holiday this year, for the princely sum of 50p.  As well as the picture of Candleford Mill, there's a picture of Pipers's Mead.  Very nice!

[allan downes]

Of course, Tony, one has to consider that my experiences with P4 was something like 40 years ago when neither Graham Beaumont or myself were what you would have called competent modellers in fact, we were diabolical in every sense of the word but got away with it because, in the main, so was everyone else !

 

No doubt, things have improved immensely in all respects - components and model makers alike -   since our barbaric  dabble in the more refined aspects of the hobby 40 years ago.

 

So, Tony, not so much a knock at the P4 Society but more of an admission of our inadequacy ( GB and myself )  as model makers to justify what these good people set out to do as far back as then.

 

Anyway, my fullest apologies to any member of the P4 Society, and the society as a whole, that I may have unintentionally offended.

 

Allan. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by allan downes

[Willie Whizz]

In an ideal world, every kit would come with fully detailed instructions, with illustrations and drawings, and with several prototype photos.

 

In the real world, this would increase the price of kits very significantly. I have a suspicion/theory, call it what you will, that many of those people best equipped to produce kits are not very good at writing instructions. Writing is a much undervalued skill, because we can (pretty much) all write. However, to write clear, unequivocal instructions for something as complicated as a model railway kit is no small task. There are people out there who manage it, but they are very much in the minority. 

 

In the real world the price of a locomotive kit, by the time you've factored-in all the extra bits that don't come in the box, you are already talking quite some way into 3-figures in modern times.  In that context, an extra fiver, a tenner, or even twenty quid on the price to cover provision of a decent set of instructions is frankly neither here nor there!  But why it is so very important such decent instructions should be there is that they drastically increase the chances of a novice or comparatively inexperienced modeller actually achieving a successful outcome.  

 

If he/she achieves that, the chances are they will buy another from the same manufacturer ... and then maybe another again. And tell a friend, who may also be inspired to buy one. And by the fifth or sixth kit, yes they probably do - by then - pay less attention to studying the instructions in detail and following them to the letter.  But the kit manufacturers by now have another regular customer, even if not such a prolific builder as our Dear Leader himself. 

 

However, if he/she does not achieve at least a tolerably successful outcome from their first one or two attempts, the chances are the novice builder will be deterred comprehensively from trying again.  This is a story we hear time and time and time again - to the extent that I cannot seriously believe anybody could doubt ... not just the truth, but the necessity of it.

 

And yet some do doubt the necessity - or else just don't care - including at times it appears some posters on here.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Willie Whizz

[Focalplane]

P4 or OO, what a choice.  Not!  7mm Finescale does it for me!

 

But then there is also S7.  God help us all.

 

Sigh.

[Tony Wright]

In the real world the price of a locomotive kit, by the time you've factored-in all the extra bits that don't come in the box, you are already talking quite some way into 3-figures in modern times.  In that context, an extra fiver, a tenner, or even twenty quid on the price to cover provision of a decent set of instructions is frankly neither here nor there!  But why it is so very important such decent instructions should be there is that they drastically increase the chances of a novice or comparatively inexperienced modeller actually achieving a successful outcome.  

 

If he/she achieves that, the chances are they will buy another from the same manufacturer ... and then maybe another again. And tell a friend, who may also be inspired to buy one. And by the fifth or sixth kit, yes they probably do - by then - pay less attention to studying the instructions in detail and following them to the letter.  But the kit manufacturers by now have another regular customer, even if not such a prolific builder as our Dear Leader himself. 

 

However, if he/she does not achieve at least a tolerably successful outcome from their first one or two attempts, the chances are the novice builder will be deterred comprehensively from trying again.  This is a story we hear time and time and time again - to the extent that I cannot seriously believe anybody could doubt ... not just the truth, but the necessity of it.

 

And yet some do doubt the necessity - or else just don't care - including at times it appears some posters on here.

Willie,

 

I'm not doubting that, for a lot of people, really good kit instructions would significantly improve the chances of a successful outcome for the build. I can only speak personally on this matter (and I'm really not the leader) in stating that from a very early stage in my modelling career I never bothered with instructions; I think I became a bit suspicious of kit instructions getting on for 60 years ago when the exploded diagram (what a wonderful phrase) in the instructions for the Airfix model of HMS HOOD showed the bridge front upside down - with the windows and triangular supports at the top. It took me some time to work out why it didn't fit, even though the wonderful painting on the box had it the right way round. 

 

I've said before that I know from talking to manufacturers that over 90% of their (particularly) loco kits are never completed. Most end up in a half-built (usually glued-together) mess. Even if they are 'completed', they very often don't run. Need one ask, then, why current RTR is so burgeoning? I reckon that most failed loco building is not down to poor instructions (though they must be a factor) but down to aspiration over ability. It's more often than not that the complex 'favourites' (the big, complex locos) are attempted and the result is just abject failure. Some who fail, hide their creations (or abominations?) away, fearing ridicule if the results are witnessed by others. Some immediately blame the kit, and refuse to acknowledge that they're really just duffers at the job - and probably always will be. The wisest of the failed builders give up, or pay someone else to do it for them. 

 

I am very critical of kit instructions where (because of a perceived fear of soldering), glue is recommended as a medium for holding things together. Items like etched nickel silver coupling rod laminates? Or, etched brass window frames into etched brass cab sides? Why don't they just come clean and state that 'If you can't solder, don't attempt this kit?' They might lose a sale, but their models might well get built properly. 

 

Strangely enough (despite my Devil's advocacy), I do care because I would hate to see the traditional craft of making models disappear. Some might well pay more for a kit with good instructions, but price sensitivity is very prevalent throughout all aspects of this hobby. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Of course, Tony, one has to consider that my experiences with P4 was something like 40 years ago when neither Graham Beaumont or myself were what you would have called competent modellers in fact, we were diabolical in every sense of the word but got away with it because, in the main, so was everyone else !

 

No doubt, things have improved immensely in all respects - components and model makers alike -   since our barbaric  dabble in the more refined aspects of the hobby 40 years ago.

 

So, Tony, not so much a knock at the P4 Society but more of an admission of our inadequacy ( GB and myself )  as model makers to justify what these good people set out to do as far back as then.

 

Anyway, my fullest apologies to any member of the P4 Society, and the society as a whole, that I may have unintentionally offended.

 

Allan. 

I don't think you've ever offended anyone, Allan (other than, perhaps one of the track stewards at York when you tried to drive over the grass - do you remember?). 

 

Anyway, I've always found it best to stick with what one is good at. And you're really good at architectural modelling.

 

 

 

 

I've had a further go at looking at what the cottages you've kindly offered to make for LB might look like in the scene. It's giving me views I've never attempted to capture before, and I'm quite pleased with the results. The backscene needs further work on it and I've got more railings to make and fix in place, as well as 'growing' the front gardens. 

 

What's best is that nobody bothers about the gauge. 

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

With due respect, if you say you never bothered with instructions then I for one I am glad that I ignored that small pearl of personal wisdom.

 

I find that if I ignore one line of instructions I have to do a lot of unsoldering with associated blue language.  I persist with kit building only because of good instructions.  Believe me, no kit maker is going to get my business if their instructions don't make my life just that bit easier.  If push came to shove and there were no kits with good instructions I would go RTR 100%.

 

That's not a threat, of course, just good customer feedback.

 

Back to the workbench, Paul

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

With due respect, if you say you never bothered with instructions then I for one I am glad that I ignored that small pearl of personal wisdom.

 

I find that if I ignore one line of instructions I have to do a lot of unsoldering with associated blue language.  I persist with kit building only because of good instructions.  Believe me, no kit maker is going to get my business if their instructions don't make my life just that bit easier.  If push came to shove and there were no kits with good instructions I would go RTR 100%.

 

That's not a threat, of course, just good customer feedback.

 

Back to the workbench, Paul

Paul,

 

With equal respect, I don't think I've ever advocated never bothering with instructions (other than tongue in cheek). In a way it's the classic teacher cop-out of 'do as I say, not as I do'. I just never have really bothered with them 

 

As I've already said, having built getting on for 500 locos now (how many carriages, I don't know), it's my experience that so many instructions are just hopeless and only useful for using the paper they're written on to give a perfect working clearance/barrier for soldering moving parts together (though others prefer aluminium foil). 

 

In fairness, I'll usually give a casual glance at a kit's instructions if only to identify any parts I'm not sure of. But, that's all. I just go plodding on, cheerfully employing my full repertoire of profanity.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[rowanj]

I suppose I've just about graduated above the"duffer" stage though won't be winning any awards for my locos any time soon, though they do actually run. Posters keep telling me that writing instructions is difficult so I suppose it must be true,,though I wonder if,in part,it is because it is a different skill set to kit design and building. I am certainly better on paper than I am with a soldering iron.

I don't see why I should have to pay extra for being given instructions on a way to build the product I have bought. I just want an accurate description of the manufacturers recommended order of assembly, which I can then take or leave. But if I take it,I expect that any failures are either down to my workmanship or a design fault. Inaccurate instructions are inexcusable.

Why do we tolerate poor instructions in model kits when we expect them with almost everything else that we buy? Should suppliers of electronics, for instance, stop putting guidance in new TVs?

Rant over,,off to lay a bit more track on my model of Little Benton, ECML north of Newcastle in 1958 or so.

Edited August 7, 2017 by rowanj

[Clearwater]

One of the unexpected pleasures I've found on starting to make kits is learning what particular parts of a loco are actually called and then using that new knowledge to find out what the part was used for on the prototype. (Google and Wikipedia are excellent resources). I've probably learnt as much about the workings of a steam loco from trying to put a kit together than from looking at photos or watching videos

 

David

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

No disrespect, just my 5 cents worth.  But as so much of this thread has recently lamented the potential demise of kit building I thought my input might be relevant.  Call it a wake up call to those kit makers who think including good, well thought out instructions in their boxes to be a waste of their time.  I can think of no greater put off, other than those kits where part 1 really doesn't fit to part 2.  I know that if I were to venture into making and selling kits this would be my priority.  Alas, I am simply too late to join the party but not quite too late to invest in buying kits.

 

(Just so everyone knows, I have built a Jinty 3F, an LMS 4F, a Midland Compound and a Collett 14XX in the last two years and have a 74XX on order.  I have started a Castle and have unopened Patriot and Compound with inside motion kits to see me through the next year or so.  I am, in other words, a customer for well designed kits with good instructions)

 

Now I really will sign off.

 

Best wishes, Paul

[Clive Mortimore]

To the novice a good set of instructions are very helpful, not only in kit building but other walks of life.

 

Today I helped my son assemble his "Gym equipment". Two bits of kit came from the same manufacturer. One set of instructions my non-mechanically minded son could follow, clear diagrams and the parts were named. Second box poor illustrations, and parts only numbered, thank goodness for a certain diesel kit producer I was able to interpret the gobbledygook in front of us. Had box two been opened first he would have given up.

[coachmann]

Each to their own. I built loco kits for other people from 1968 to 1979. Instructions were surplus to requirements partly because they only make sense to me after I've done the job, but mostly because my ideas on order of assembly probably differed so much from the other fella's.  I had been scratchbuilding loco bodies in styrene sheet for six years prior to picking up a soldering iron and so I knew what a basic locomotive should look like! 

 

Before we became good friends, a chap asked me to paint his 7mm scale wagon that he said was his first attempt at building a kit. His next kit was an LNWR 'Cauliflower'.......!  He later went on to design and produce some of the best 7mm loco and coach kits, which just shows that some people 'have it' right from the word go.

Edited August 7, 2017 by coachmann

[grob1234]

Thank you Tony for the continued support.

 

With regards to instructions, it's obvious to me that the skill level and experience of the individual building the kit plays a huge part.

 

On my first kit, I was totally reliant on the instructions, luckily it was a good kit, or maybe I was lucky?! London Road Models J69.

 

I've now built a few kits and I'm noticing that sometimes I read the instructions and then do my own thing. I did this recently with the J3 I'm building, and it worked for me. So perhaps one day instructions will be more of a guide than a set of steps to follow rigidly.

 

So I'd say it's essential that newcomers to the hobby take on a simple kit or two to get started. Like Tony says we are often inclined to start big which is likely to end in failure. That said, a decent set of clear instructions is still an essential part of any kit especially when the price now is £100 ++ for the kit alone.

[Jesse Sim]

Morning Tony, 

 

I now have a new account and a new layout thread.  

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/125185-brighton-junction/?p=2812997

 

Thread explains it all.

 

Jesse

[kandc_au]

  I had been scratchbuilding loco bodies in styrene sheet for six years prior to picking up a soldering iron and so I knew what a basic locomotive should look like! 

 

And therein is what I think is one of the big issues.

A lot of us do NOT know all the ins and outs of loco's.

Both Tony and Coach have been building these for a lot of years and it becomes second nature as to what sequence things should be done.

 

Me on the other hand ................

Watching that video of Tony assembling the 3 loco's and just how he does it, explaining why he does what when, has been a real eye opener and inspiration!

 

Khris

[rodger5591]

Regarding kit instructions, this is perhaps an area where RMWeb could provide a service similar to Wikipedia, with a 'kit instructions' section for members to edit/comment.

 

The kit manufacturers would need to give permission for their original instructions to be posted, then as members' comments are made/edits suggested, these could be captured as edits to the post of the original instructions in a different font/text colour, referencing the post number below. Things like a parts list, exploded diagrams, prototype notes etc could be added if they were missing from the original. 

 

Perhaps in the future, instructions for new kits could be "crowd-sourced" is this way, with the test build being posted and then the rest of us helping to develop the instructions as we do our own builds.

[Tony Wright]

I suppose I've just about graduated above the"duffer" stage though won't be winning any awards for my locos any time soon, though they do actually run. Posters keep telling me that writing instructions is difficult so I suppose it must be true,,though I wonder if,in part,it is because it is a different skill set to kit design and building. I am certainly better on paper than I am with a soldering iron.

I don't see why I should have to pay extra for being given instructions on a way to build the product I have bought. I just want an accurate description of the manufacturers recommended order of assembly, which I can then take or leave. But if I take it,I expect that any failures are either down to my workmanship or a design fault. Inaccurate instructions are inexcusable.

Why do we tolerate poor instructions in model kits when we expect them with almost everything else that we buy? Should suppliers of electronics, for instance, stop putting guidance in new TVs?

Rant over,,off to lay a bit more track on my model of Little Benton, ECML north of Newcastle in 1958 or so.

I don't think you've ever been at the 'duffer' stage, John,

 

Just as an aside regarding instructions, might I add this little piece, please? It has nothing to do with loco kit-making, but you mention TV instructions. May I add radio instructions to that?

 

I've not long ago bought a new car (well, new to me, anyway). It's a very fast Ford Focus. Previous to this I had an 'ordinary' Ford Focus. In that one, I could work the radio. Not in this new one! Despite reading the (what appear to be) clear instructions, all I get is either some awful modern station (pre-selected by the previous owner?) where some thick-accented DJ just assaults my hearing with his inane ramblings and plays stuff called ©rap-music and the like, or all that comes out is just a kind of low 'roaring' noise. Try as I might, I can't get TMS or music which is music. 

 

Which brings me to the point of this particular piece of rambling. It could be that the radio instructions are perfect, but I'm too dim to understand them. Every button I press just takes me into another (even more incomprehensible) sub-menu, which, like a diabolical digital maze, is impossible to escape from.

 

Is that the reason why I abandoned kit instructions? They might not have been dire at all - just me who's too dim to work them out! 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Tony Wright