ETCHING POOR DESIGN

[2ManySpams]

Good reminder of why I really wouldnt want to pay money to have to bend bits of metal to some sort of shape they should have been in to start with

It can be quite satisfying Mickey but less so if parts are the wrong size and shape!

[Barry O]

Ivan (Horestan)

 

if you come to Warley Mike Edge is demoing etched kit design... and, strangely enough he always build test etches to check for changes...

 

Baz

[2ManySpams]

Ivan (Horestan)

 

if you come to Warley Mike Edge is demoing etched kit design... and, strangely enough he always build test etches to check for changes...

 

Baz

I think that the vital 'making changes after the test build' stage has been missed out on the kit I'm building.

[N15class]

There's nothing in the instructions preventing you from:

• filling up the half-etch depressions with a suitably formed brass sheet or
• taking a file or abrasive disk thinning the full depth sections either before or after you've punched in the rivets

 

Mind, you did glow the to-be curved section so the metal is softer and better pliable? (tap it back into strength with a light hammer)

But that should not be necessary. You should be able to make a clean bend.

 

The part in the first photo looks like a tank loco bunker rear/sides, not the pannier tank shown next, so a bit confusing.

 

Simply, it looks like it was designed by someone who hadn't much experience and is possibly from the earlier days of etched kits. Over the years designers have become more experienced at creating kits which go together well. However some of the kits on the market are still early designs, occassionally under new ownership/rebranded and it isn't commercially viable to redesign/ retool them.

 

The answer is to understand what you are buying and whenever possible buy a kit that has an established reputation for accuracy and ease of assembly.

I put the bunker photo in to show the half etching. I know this is of an earlier design but if they had of built one they would of nown what they did failed to work.

 

Hand drawn artwork -- how quaint.

 But the process of half etching the bend is a failure, whether it was drawn by hand or CAD. Yes it might be hand drawn and quaint, but on the whole the parts fit where they should.

 

Peter, for a minute I thought you'd posted photos of my 1366 build. This is a new kit from an established kit producer and still had a multitude of errors and bits that don't fit.

 

The top two folds of the tank came pre-formed but the bends were in the wrong place and to the wrong radius. This meant flattening the piece and rebending it. The two lower bends helpfully had half etch lines but they didn't line up with where the bends needed to be. I'm finding that other pieces are too long / short and that various holes are not in the right place.

 

I'm sure that the seasoned pro would take this all in their stride and probably expects / relishes the challenge but it can be very offputting and demoralising for a newbie.

 

The reason I chose the kit in the first place was down to the various warnings I'd had that other options were poor or only an aid to scratch building or had dimensional issues. The initial impression I had was good though as all the etched parts looked well laid out and crisply formed. I'd even had a good look at a completed kit on the stand.

 

The devil though has been in the detail. I had mistakenly hoped for better.

You would of had given up with these tanks. I very nearly cut new out of flat sheet to start again, if I had not been building my 0395 and want all stock sheet for that, I would of done.

[Andy Reichert]

Shedloads.

 

If we teach everyone to do good artwork we'd be doing ourselves out of work.

 

My basic geometry advice on doing 8 coupled CSB's right seemed to fall on deaf ears. 

 

Andy

[billbedford]

 But the process of half etching the bend is a failure, whether it was drawn by hand or CAD. Yes it might be hand drawn and quaint, but on the whole the parts fit where they should.

 

 

 

But seeing etching like this should have been a warning for you not to start work on it and return the kit to it's source.

 

There are many people in the hobby who produce stuff having little experience of good design and the only way they can learn is from feed back from people like you. Having said that, as other people have suggested, this looks to be an old kit and it's perhaps unreasonable to expect it to have been designed and drawn with the same skill as current production.

 

Maybe kit manufacturers should start putting 'best before' dates on our packaging to save modellers the sorts of problems you have found.

[N15class]

But seeing etching like this should have been a warning for you not to start work on it and return the kit to it's source.

 

There are many people in the hobby who produce stuff having little experience of good design and the only way they can learn is from feed back from people like you. Having said that, as other people have suggested, this looks to be an old kit and it's perhaps unreasonable to expect it to have been designed and drawn with the same skill as current production.

 

Maybe kit manufacturers should start putting 'best before' dates on our packaging to save modellers the sorts of problems you have found.

 

I have said things to a few manufactures about things in the past. I have been told Must be me as no one else has said anything, to there is nothing wrong with where the tabs and slots are. So maybe I have only spoken to the wrong ones.

 

 

The idea off having half etch where the bend is is sound, what is not is the combination of both.  I do not design kits but I build quite a few, I expect to have to adjust the fit of parts as when I form a piece I may form it tighter or looser than the designer did.

 

I do not know much about the etching process, but can these half etches easily remove from the net batch ore is there large tooling costs?

 

All in all the kit has gone together nicely, if it had not been for this little problem it would of been a good build. I have had worse, my Beattie well tank for one.

[Grovenor]

My basic geometry advice on doing 8 coupled CSB's right seemed to fall on deaf ears. 

 

Andy

Has this got any relevance to this topic? I saw no mention of CSBs, what have I missed?

Keith

[Jol Wilkinson]

I have said things to a few manufactures about things in the past. I have been told Must be me as no one else has said anything, to there is nothing wrong with where the tabs and slots are. So maybe I have only spoken to the wrong ones.

 

 

The idea off having half etch where the bend is is sound, what is not is the combination of both.  I do not design kits but I build quite a few, I expect to have to adjust the fit of parts as when I form a piece I may form it tighter or looser than the designer did.

 

I do not know much about the etching process, but can these half etches easily remove from the net batch ore is there large tooling costs?

 

All in all the kit has gone together nicely, if it had not been for this little problem it would of been a good build. I have had worse, my Beattie well tank for one.

Usually any design change needs a new production tool, £35 - £70 upwards .Occasionally very minor changes (hand drawing an extra hole or fold line) can be done but with some loss of accuracy.

[Siberian Snooper]

Having just started to put together a Frogmore dia AA3 GW toad kit, that has been going together reasonably OK I found that the veranda end overlay was 2/3rds accurate that the rh side is 0.5mm to wide and I now need to remove the overlay a take a 0.5mm chunk out of that part of the etch.

 

I have two more kits to build and will now measure everything before soldering up.

 

I shall also revise my method of building these kits as I have found it difficult to fold it up accurately, as there are bends at 90 degrees to each other and not a lot of room to play. I think I will cut the floor off and add machined brass angle around the edges and then add the various bits of side and end to this.

 

Who said kit building was easy.

[N15class]

Usually any design change needs a new production tool, £35 - £70 upwards .Occasionally very minor changes (hand drawing an extra hole or fold line) can be done but with some loss of accuracy.

Not something you want to do to many times then.

[LNWR lives on]

Not something you want to do to many times then.

 

No, but its generally a damn site cheaper to make etch drawing changes than other disciplines, such as altering a set of white metal masters which then need new moulds producing

 

 

Who said kit building was easy.

 

Don't know but they probably never built much at all. The beauty of a kit is the pride in seeing your model running, and as its a kit the chance to make it your own.

 

Consider also, when you have built something that is an absolute s***e to put together and you have got it looking beautiful, that pride is a little extra

[N15class]

No, but its generally a damn site cheaper to make etch drawing changes than other disciplines, such as altering a set of white metal masters which then need new moulds producing

 

 

Don't know but they probably never built much at all. The beauty of a kit is the pride in seeing your model running, and as its a kit the chance to make it your own.

 

Consider also, when you have built something that is an absolute s***e to put together and you have got it looking beautiful, that pride is a little extra

I can imagine the cost of masters and molds are high. Just from my own experience of scratch building.

 

I get confused by the notion by some that CAD drawn etches are better than hand drawn. I have built good and bad of both. I think it is more about the design. This 850 has been a nice fitting kit the only down fall has been this part etching of the curves.

 

It is as you say most satisfying when you complete a s##t kit.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I can imagine the cost of masters and molds are high. Just from my own experience of scratch building.

 

I get confused by the notion by some that CAD drawn etches are better than hand drawn. I have built good and bad of both. I think it is more about the design. This 850 has been a nice fitting kit the only down fall has been this part etching of the curves.

 

It is as you say most satisfying when you complete a s##t kit.

Simple patterns are quite easily and cheaply made. Boiler fittings (domes, etc.) need more specialist work and can be expensive. Cast brass moulds (for the waxes) aren't that expensive but the process is dearer than for casting white metal. On the other hand w/m moulds cost a bit more but usually produce multiple items for each "spin". However, drawing artwork can be done sitting in front of the computer while making patterns means getting your hands dirty, so some "designers" will happily provide etches but leave you to source the other bits elsewhere.

 

CAD gives the benefit of greater accuracy and consistency. I draw artwork to .01mm, and could go finer but I feel there is no point. Drawing by hand with three or four times photo reduction probably wouldn't get anywhere near that.

 

Where designs fall short it is usually because they haven't been sufficiently and properly "tested". Any good designer will test build his designs to ensure they work and correct any errors. I suspect most poor kits have not been subjected to this process adequately (if at all), Few items are simple enough or not so dimensionally critical (e.g. a station roof bracket) that they need this. However a loco, carriage or wagon/van kit (or anything with several fold lines) need testing to make sure you've got it right. 

[macgeordie]

I've been designing my own kits for quite some time now and I still find I need at least two test etches, and usually three to guarantee everything fits properly. The other thing is good instructions, my last couple of offerings have about 8 to 10 A4 sheets when printed out. A lot of the kits I have built in the past have one or two sheets of mediocre information and usually no photos which makes life hard.

 

Ian

[Andy Reichert]

Has this got any relevance to this topic? I saw no mention of CSBs, what have I missed?

Keith

 

It's part of concept of competently understanding what you are doing, in order to then not be poorly be designing etched kits. Etched kits are where CSB's have been mostly adopted. As per Bill's posting , one should presumably return a kit that has single CSB's covering a 4 axle chassis. As it's not as good as it should be.

[jonhall]

I've been designing my own kits for quite some time now and I still find I need at least two test etches, and usually three to guarantee everything fits properly. The other thing is good instructions, my last couple of offerings have about 8 to 10 A4 sheets when printed out. A lot of the kits I have built in the past have one or two sheets of mediocre information and usually no photos which makes life hard.

 

Ian

 

Ian,  I'm guessing you are using PPD, and at their prices test etches are viable - times the price by 5 or 10 for the 'traditional' etchers that the hobby used until PPD came along would there be as many?

 

J

[PenrithBeacon]

...

 

However a loco, carriage or wagon/van kit (or anything with several fold lines) need testing to make sure you've got it right.

This has to be true. But what should also be true is that they be tested by a modeller who has the appropriate experience for the target market. I do wonder whether etched kits are tested but by very experienced modellers, who don't require the instructions and can work around issues. Then don't report those issues to the designer because the tester doesn't feel they're significant. Then along comes someone like me and the kit is condemned because there are faults which the tester just didn't recognise.

 

Regards

[Jol Wilkinson]

This has to be true. But what should also be true is that they be tested by a modeller who has the appropriate experience for the target market. I do wonder whether etched kits are tested but by very experienced modellers, who don't require the instructions and can work around issues. Then don't report those issues to the designer because the tester doesn't feel they're significant. Then along comes someone like me and the kit is condemned because there are faults which the tester just didn't recognise.

 

Regards

David,

 

a difficult one, indeed. As a designer I want to build the tests myself because I want to know first hand what the problems are and if the kit will go together as intended. As I don't regard myself as other than an ordinary modeller and as I design kits based upon some years experience of building (and having to modify) a variety of other people's kits, I don't see that as a drawback. I know of one designer who relies totally on others to build his test etches and that usually creates more problems than it solves - although that may be down to the particular individual.

 

It also depends on the designer's philosophy. Is he designing a kit to give a good representation of the prototype but be straightforward to build, is it intended to be a "super kit" version of the real thing with few concessions to building it as a working model, or is he sufficiently confident in his own abilities/trying to keep his costs down to thing he can get it right first time/every time. Sometimes you can take a different approach over the superstructure design (which you can make pretty accurate) compared to the to the chassis where more complications are forced upon you. 

 

In 4mm things are further complicated by designing to accommodate three gauges and different sets of manufacturers wheel standards. Sometimes it means building two or three test models of each design iteration. Some designers handle this by seemingly ignoring it, while some older kits still on the market were designed solely for OO with no recognition of the other gauges. 

 

Kit manufacturers will know which of his kits are more straightforward than others and will usually guide you in the right direction.

 

Jol

[Horsetan]

....a s##t kit.

What an excellent idea for a new brand name!

[Tony Wright]

This has to be true. But what should also be true is that they be tested by a modeller who has the appropriate experience for the target market. I do wonder whether etched kits are tested but by very experienced modellers, who don't require the instructions and can work around issues. Then don't report those issues to the designer because the tester doesn't feel they're significant. Then along comes someone like me and the kit is condemned because there are faults which the tester just didn't recognise.

 

Regards

David,

 

As Jol has alluded to, a difficult one.

 

If this is of any use, during my days as a professional locomotive model-maker I would often be the first 'independent' builder of a new kit. I know this because a brand-new loco kit would often arrive, with a request that I build it and write a review for the press, please. Frequently, this was before the kit went on general sale. From memory, the main loco-suppliers were (in no particular order) Crownline (thence PDK), SE Finecast, Mercia Models, DJH, DMR, London Road, Agenoria, Tower Models, Autocom, Alan Gibson, Coopercraft, Ace, plus several I've forgotten - for which my apologies. Granted, most of these were built in OO, a few in EM and a few in O. I never built anything in P4. I would report my findings back to the manufacturer, who had a right to reply but not a right to have a review changed (unless I'd cocked-up). In most cases, the kits went together well, were well-designed and good value, and I reported thus. Occasionally, because of my findings, a part would be altered. Granted, the likes of DJH are OO-designed at source (though I built two Thompson Pacifics in EM). Granted, too, a lot of the above are mixed-media kits, not just etched, though all had many etched parts. Some LRM kits needed their bearings shaving down to suit OO. I never built any Mitchell/Finney/Bradwell kits, most of which (I believe) need alterations to the frames to suit OO.

 

In one case, where I bought a loco kit and reported on its building, the result was a whole range taken off the market! In another case, I sent the whole lot back having started both locos, stating that, in my opinion, they were 'not fit for purpose' (none of the above, I hasten to add).

 

Latterly, in the case of DJH's OO kits (Thompson A2/2 and Brighton Atlantic), I actually conducted the test-builds and wrote the instruction. I also test-built the A2/3, though the instructions were written by someone else beforehand - before he'd built the kit! The late John Hughes sent me me bags and bags of bits/etches, plus some rudimentary drawings and I got on with the job. Abstracting myself from the role, I think it's a good idea to have a kit built by a third party, who might intercept problems overlooked by the designer. He/she can then report accordingly, and, in some cases, have changes made. However, there is a cost/time imperative to this.

 

What nobody wants is a review of the maker's skill level. I've seen many cases where a 'critic' of a product has been vituperative in his/her condemnation of a particular loco/rolling stock kit, where, on examination, the builder hasn't the 'skill factor' to complete it, and just makes a mess. Aspiration above ability one might call it. That's why I left the high-end kits alone, brilliant though they be.

 

I suppose in the worst examples (supposition here, I admit), a manufacturer of an etched kit might have made all the bits and found problems during the test build. Then, rather than incur a time/cost delay, he/she has decided to put it on sale anyway, knowing that it might be months (years?) before these are made-known. Given that 80%-90% of (loco) kits are never completed to satisfaction (anecdotal and empirical evidence), that might be the case in some instances, though the (lack of) skill-factor is the more likely.

 

Edited to remove ambiguity.

[N15class]

David,

 

As Jol has alluded to, a difficult one.

 

If this is of any use, during my days as a professional locomotive model-maker I would often be the first 'independent' builder of a new kit. I know this because a brand-new loco kit would often arrive, with a request that I build it and write a review for the press, please. Frequently, this was before the kit went on general sale. From memory, the main loco-suppliers were (in no particular order) Crownline (thence PDK), SE Finecast, Mercia Models, DJH, DMR, London Road, Agenoria, Tower Models, Autocom, Alan Gibson, Coopercraft, Ace, plus several I've forgotten - for which my apologies. Granted, most of these were built in OO, a few in EM and a few in O. I never built anything in P4. I would report my findings back to the manufacturer, who had a right to reply but not a right to have a review changed (unless I'd cocked-up). In most cases, the kits went together well, were well-designed and good value, and I reported thus. Occasionally, because of my findings, a part would be altered. Granted, the likes of DJH are OO-designed at source (though I built two Thompson Pacifics in EM). Granted, too, a lot of the above are mixed-media kits, not just etched, though all had many etched parts. Some LRM kits needed their bearings shaving down to suit OO. I never built any Mitchell/Finney/Bradwell kits, most of which (I believe) need alterations to the frames to suit OO.

 

In one case, where I bought a loco kit and reported on its building, the result was a whole range taken off the market! In another case, I sent the whole lot back having started both locos, stating that, in my opinion, they were 'not fit for purpose' (none of the above, I hasten to add).

 

Latterly, in the case of DJH's OO kits (Thompson A2/2 and Brighton Atlantic), I actually conducted the test-builds and wrote the instruction. I also test-built the A2/3, though the instructions were written by someone else beforehand - before he'd built the kit! The late John Hughes sent me me bags and bags of bits/etches, plus some rudimentary drawings and I got on with the job. Abstracting myself from the role, I think it's a good idea to have a kit built by a third party, who might intercept problems overlooked by the designer. He/she can then report accordingly, and, in some cases, have changes made. However, there is a cost/time imperative to this.

 

What nobody wants is a review of the maker's skill level. I've seen many cases where a 'critic' of a product has been vituperative in his/her condemnation of a particular loco/rolling stock kit, where, on examination, the builder hasn't the 'skill factor' to complete it, and just makes a mess. Aspiration above ability one might call it. That's why I left the high-end kits alone, brilliant though they be.

 

I suppose in the worst examples (supposition here, I admit), a manufacturer of an etched kit might have made all the bits and found problems during the test build. Then, rather than incur a time/cost delay, he/she has decided to put it on sale anyway, knowing that it might be months (years?) before these are made-known. Given that 80%-90% of (loco) kits are never completed to satisfaction (anecdotal and empirical evidence), that might be the case in some instances, though the (lack of) skill-factor is the more likely.

 

Edited to remove ambiguity.

I have great admiration for those who design kits, I just wish some silly design errors were eliminated. The problem I had with the panniers and will have with the bunker, would of shown up if the designer or the designers builder had of built one. 

 

I always try to be positive even with poor kits. When I was in the UK I used to take on a lot of kit finishing from those who had given up or bitten off more than they could chew. So I have dealings with all sorts of kits especially the poor ones.

 

Maybe I ought to have a go at designing a wagon or the like, the patterns for casting are not a worry for me but the drawing of the etch is where I would fall down.

[macgeordie]

Ian,  I'm guessing you are using PPD, and at their prices test etches are viable - times the price by 5 or 10 for the 'traditional' etchers that the hobby used until PPD came along would there be as many?

 

J

The answer to that is simple, use PPD to do your test etches, then when the drawings are correct and the kit fits together properly send that set of drawings off to whoever you want to use for the mass production to produce the final (expensive) tool which will be right and then get as many produced as you want.

 

Ian

[Jol Wilkinson]

The answer to that is simple, use PPD to do your test etches, then when the drawings are correct and the kit fits together properly send that set of drawings off to whoever you want to use for the mass production to produce the final (expensive) tool which will be right and then get as many produced as you want.

 

Ian

I wonder if PPD print straight onto photo sensitised metal. That could explain low one off prices.

 

I have never sent anything to them but in the last twelve months but have heard that their prices aren't so dramatically below the "traditional" etchers. One area where they do seem to have an advantage is being able to do undersized etch sheets, which could also explain part of the cost saving.

[N15class]

This just goes to show there could not of been a preproduction build of this kit, or GW men were very skinny.  Having check a couple of side on photos as no drawing was supplied with the kit. The space between the cab side sheets is as close as you can get 1/3 door way 2/3 bunker. I now looks right to me except the beading and handrails will need altering.