Jol Wilkinson

What scale are you planning to build in? There are kits available for the Watford Tank in 4mm and 7mm scales. The LNWR is fairly well represented for loco kits in both those scales, including the types that lasted into early BR days If you wish to scratchbuild then I suggest that you contact the LNWR Society or the NRM at York for drawings, etc.

Does anyone remember what the catering was like last year? The CMRA or Leisure Centre websites don't provide any clues for what we might expect. Is "take your own" a better option?

Fox FRH4354/10A? This has some, which I only know about because they are on a lining sheet I bought for a NER Class G1 (LNER D23).

Kit production, or more accurately batch, volumes can be relatively small. Once the tooling is produced etches can be ordered one sheet at a time as part of a wider order, w/m castings can be produced in small volumes, which also applies to lost wax castings. An initial batch for a new etched kit might be only ten or a dozen kits, which can be followed up with smaller quantities as demand settles down. So Atso's commercial assessment doesn't really hold for the owner /driver kit manufacturer for these reasons. This ability to manufacture "on demand" in small quantities is also different from RTR, although they have the benefit of a supply chain that moves the manufactured product to an intermediary (the reseller) which generates cashflow There is no way to tell how often a kit will sell, after the initial "rush". Compared to RTR, sales are very small. The RTR manufacturers also have the benefits of (by comparison) huge media exposure, including here on RMweb with much of it generated by the customer base.

Doug, was MF right,? Clearly there was more kudos to be gained by seen walking around a show clutching MF green kit boxes (or Malcolm Mitchell's) so presumably they sold well. However, few appear on the Bring and Buy stands at Scaleforum, Expoem and the likes. Are they being kept as family heirlooms? When Brassmasters took over the range and started to reintroduce them, there was apparently no shortage of buyers. Perhaps it is because the people that bought them tend not to display their models and GWR/LSWR layouts on RMweb (unlike the ECML enthusiasts). I know several people who have Finney, Mitchell and, Bradwell kits in the cupboard, having pre-empted Tony's advice and got them while they were still hot. They have every intention of building them, but whether anno domini is on their side remains to be seen. Jol

Tony, the kit/RTR comparison you made is unsound as that it doesn't represent the broader picture, which was what I was trying to illustrate. You are right that a the introduction of a RTR model will significantly damage sales of a kit, but those that build in the two wider 4mm gauges may still build the kit version as it isn't always possible to convert the RTR product. Other, like you, still enjoy creating their own, individual and unique, models. As with any business in this day and age, "new" products are needed to keep sales/turnover going, the RTR manufacturers are clear proof of that. If a kit manufacturer allows their range to stagnate, then sales will steadily decline. Why start on building a big, complex, 4mm loco when you have little or no experience (the usual trap for beginners)?. Something smaller, more readily built and less expensive should be the starting point. It is also important to start with something that can be easily built and finished, rather that some cheap kit out of someones' vintage collection on ebay, usually featuring old technology chassis, motors, etc. Not everyone wants large ECML layouts, so the products from the likes of Dave Ellis at SEF offer a realistic way in to creating your own, individual and unique model railway. As for finance, you've paid for your models through working, although you may not consider writing books is employment. My point was that, within the context of someone's overall spend on model railways, some of us probably get as much or more enjoyment from a few, albeit more individually expensive, kits than many of those who chase the model railway dragon of building a larger collection of RTR products. Less can be more. Perhaps you are correct in that many people don't have the comment sense to build models properly (my interpretation). I still grasp the belief that with some thought, guidance and mentoring, it is possible to do things you think are beyond your capabilities. Of course you may end up not enjoying it, but that is another matter. In all this, I think what depresses me is that, at a time when we probably have the best choice of kits for locos, rolling stock, railway infrastructure, etc. available, the hobby is seemingly moving into a less creative era. Model railways are becoming less the product of the modellers imagination and more the result of what the large manufacturers choose to make. Jol

John, the difficulty is typing on the b' thing. I should stick to the pc with its proper keyboard.. Jol

Comparing the price of one kit for which there is a RTR equivalent isn't a sound basis for divining the future of kit building. Those who want to create a model railway that isn't constrained by what comes out of a Chinese factory will still build from kits. Another factor is how much your overall spend is. I am happy with relatively few models (currently eleven locos, two nearly finished and seven unstarted kits), probably far fewer and costing much less than most people's RTR collection. My enjoyment comes from building models, not simply buying and owning them. If anything is damaging interest in building models from kits it is the naysayers who claim it is too difficult, they can't solder, can't paint, etc. often without trying and, if failing first time, then giving up. Even the idea of painting a 3D printed model or slightly modifying a RTR model is offputting for some. That is much more prevalent on RMweb than the other modelling forums I frequent. Edited for typos, I should know better than using a tablet for looking at RMweb.

I don't know if John Redrup made any changes to the artwork of the G5 kit. I'll ask him when we meet at the St Albans show on Saturday (if I remember ). Single beams work with a fixed axle (either four or six coupled locos). With 4-4-0 or 0-4-4 configurations you can only use a fixed driving axle and single beam for the the other coupled one if the bogie is sprung to take up any vertical movement. With 4-4-0s you can sometimes get away with packing enough weight into the firebox area to allow the bogie to be free floating. That usually isn't possible with 0-4-4s as the weight distribution is much less favourable. I expect that's why the G5 was designed with twin twin beams and a compensated bogie. The LRM Stanier 0-4-4T has the same. The LNWR and NER 4-4-0s I designed for LRM have a sprung bogie, both to carry some front end weight and keep their wheels on the track. I don't know what Iain Rice incorporated on the design of the D51, I look forward to seeing how you get on with it. The one pictured on the LRM website is part of the Burntisland loco roster.

Was it possible that they had a station pilot to pull off the carriages and release the train loco? There was an engine shed, so the station had the facilities to maintain a pilot.

There has been a recent spate of attacks on ATM's in East Anglia, could this be linked? As someone for whom there is virtually no RTR products available for my chosen prototype/era I have found this tread very interesting. Firstly Hatton's estimates for this item seem exceedingly variable and makes one wonder about their marketing policy. Better surely would have been not to guess a price what is clearly a complex model with no prior comparison for pricing. That their estimate was not much different the LNWR Coal Tank (the only RTR loco in which I have ever taken more than a passing interest) seems to show a considerable lack of thought. I suspect that many of those who are upset by the pricing would not have had this model high on their wishlist but the original estimate made it looks so affordable they just wouldn't want to miss out. That is how much of the RTR market seems to work, with the manufacturers relying on the attractiveness of different/unusual prototypes to attract sales.

Andrew, the majority of modellers I know don't "use" RMweb. Several use other Forums, usually related to a specific model railway or prototype Society. They are usually less interested in RTR or OO than probably most RMweb members and find that the other forums are more appropriate to their needs. Those other forums of which I am a member have little or nothing in the way of general chat, frothing about new products, wish lists, etc. but are focused on information sharing, modelling techniques, etc. They are always my first port of call when I am looking for information. Jol

I enjoyed Alan Bennett's comment in his collection of diaries "Keep On Keeoing On" and which I think is more apposite. ""It's good to talk" is the most specious and misleading injunction since "All you need is love". It has prompted millions of opinionated and empty headed people to take to the internet and regale the world with their fatuities". Winding people up online suggests a mischievous intent. I think many people don't get that far along a thought process, just hit the keyboard with the first "clever" thought they have. I prefer the word pastime to hobby "an activity that is done for enjoyment". Something that requires a bit of effort, rather than a pacific, inactive or mindless soaking up of what others people present you (often for a commercial end). Now, Is that a wind up or a thought provoking comment?

As you were an occasional visitor to a S4 Society Area Group meetings before you moved to Lincolnshire, I guess that means you aren't human. I did have my suspicions.

How much for a 4 bed detached with double garage and workshop? Do you provide the plot as well, in a location of my choice? If so I would even design an etched kit for you and get it professionally painted!

The choice of "motor mount", gears and and motor is also constrained by gauge for locos with etched chassis, as most have spacers to suit the different gauges. So when enquiring, it is always worth saying which loco and which gauge. The Highlevel Compact+ and Mashima 1020 would seem like a good combination, the only possibly issue might be the cab floor if you were driving the rear coupled axle. However I can't see the Compact+ on the HL site, but a Road Runner with the gear swung under the motor and driving the centre axle is a possibility. Putting my pedant's hat on, a Motor Mount is fitted to the motor and aligns the motor output shaft gear with the first stage gear. A gearbox has it's own input shaft bearings and can be mounted remotely to the gearbox. Sharman, Exactoscale and AGW used to supply these but no longer. Bill Bedford does some with 14:1 and 21:1 gears. Generally speaking, Motor Mounts are what we normally all use.

I cannot comment from any knowledge of the prototype, but contrary to what the photos show, a beading on the tank side top would seem logical, rather than leave a "sharp" exposed edge. The LNWR applied beadings which extended to provide the vertical handrail support. However, the two prototype photos show cab side beading quite clearly but not along the tank sides. A look at some of the G5 images on the web (invariably in LNER or BR days) also supports the lack of beading. It'll make the build a bit quicker too. This photo of a model built from the LRM kit, courtesy of John Brighton who ran Sheffield Steamline, shows a Class O with the beadings applied. By contrast, this model (apologies, I don't know who built it) shows a Class O without the beadings. Edited to add that the boiler handrails are also different.

Make your minds up. You sound like followers of St Confused the Indecisive.

John, http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/other/modelling.php or, although less "obvious" and 4mm only, http://www.clag.org.uk/russ/supplier.html If those don't meet the need, then is there a role for RMweb, although that may not suit Warner's commercial needs for advertising revenue for BRM. Jol

Clive, no, modellers are not all equal, we are all a bit different. Jol

John, you've identified several "brands" I had forgotten. K's too. However, Perseverance are still available from Chris Parrish, some D&S kits are still available from Danny Pinnock, while some have gone into other hands such as LRM. Several suppliers have increased their ranges, such as Brassmasters, David Geen and LRM with new kits as well as "absorbing" other ranges, something Wizard, Roxey, Dart Castings, SEF and others have also done. Without doing a count, to prove it one way or another, I think we are still pretty well covered, including conversion and detailing upgrade kits for RTR, which weren't common years ago, or at least after Crownline disappeared. Sadly, it is those willing to have a go at actually using what is available to make something unique and personal that seems to be in greater decline. Jol

And which faith would you ascribe for OO modelers?.

John, were there more kit about twenty or thirty years ago? I wouldn't agree, although what has changed is the ability to buy them in your local model shop and that most kits are now more complex and detailed than the white metal offerings of yore (which are mostly still available). The shops have largely disappeared, replaced by the online RTR warehouses The bits are still available too, but as with the kits you have to go direct to the manufacturer, either online or at show. What that possibly does is make those options "invisible" to the modeller whose window into the hobby is through the mainstream magazines. The concentration on RTR and its quality, claims that it isn't possible for the most people to create models to those standards, etc. probably deters most from having a go. The "I tried it once but failed" claim, also prevents people from taking up the satisfying pastime of actually making something for yourself. Jol

I was especially thinking of planning for the river crossings, track curves, etc. Perhaps this was planned as presented to create a challenge for the track builders and create "better" tv. If you were building a layout, you would prepare by identifying what track components you needed. While that clearly couldn't be done for the whole length, some "shorter" curves (such as my childhood Hornby Dublo set had) would possibly have helped. Am I being too pragmatic or were the track laying teams simply expected to use their initiative?

I was very much reminded of those leadership/management courses while watching episode one. Take a group of people who don't know each other, divide them into different groups, select team leaders on a seemingly random basis, give them a difficult task for which they probably have no experience, put them in "strange" surroundings and set each team a target to achieve, providing a competitive element. Add to this a lack of proper planning by the organisers, no "on the job training" and you have the ideal recipe for a tv programme with a bit of conflict, emotional out bursts, criticism by the "experts" who set it up but undoubtedly a happy outcome.