Jol Wilkinson

Dylan, other suppliers of P4 loco wheels are Ultrascale and Sharman Wheels (part of Phoenix Precision Paints). However, Ultrascale have a more limited range and currently an eight month delivery time. Sharman Wheels are also a bit of a problem in that they don't appear to be regularly producing new product (unless you are willing to place a very large order for just one wheel type). So you are dependant on them having existing stock of the wheels you want. I have used both Sharman and Gibson wheels and find they both have their idiosyncrasy's. However, they are satisfactorily used by many P4 loco builders. If you can outline the experience you have had, it may well be possible to suggest a way around the problem. Probably not best done on on Tony's forum as he is a committed Markits wheel advocate and we don't want to upset him. Perhaps a dedicated thread in the Kitbuilding and Scratchbuilding section would be a better way. Jol

Move along, nothing to see. Well, that's how it feels, having spent some time wiring the baseboards and then started to adapt the control panel to fit in the new circuitry. The redundant switches and indicator LEDs have been removed and their replacements fitted. I plated over the panel with 1.0mm black plasticard to cover the redundant holes before drilling for new. Next will be to fit the connector sockets and then wiring can commence. A bit of time was lost when I decided to test the plain track sections to ensure the connections between the baseboards were good. I found that both Up and Down lines were linked at the northern end of the layout. Isolating the baseboards showed where the problem lay and proved the advantage of making the baseboards removeable as I was able to remove the one where the problem lay to work on the wiring with ease.

Good advice. I would add that it is also worth buying decent drill bits. I buy Busch drills from Cooksongold. Not cheap but worthwhile as they are accurate, last well and being on a standard shank are readily changed over, especially if using a collet. The only breakages I get are if using a hand held drill (manual or electric) and apply too much force which invariably puts some sideways pressure on the drill bit.

Hi Martin, recommended in various RMweb and other model railway forums. For example the Elgoo and Anycubic are well recommended. Likewise Monoprice for filament printers. The lowest price on the web I can find for your two suggestions are £119 and £139. It seems that internet pricing is a bit of a minefield as are the recommendations on various sites that an internet search provides (ignoring the sponsored or advert related ones). However I haven't researched it that deeply, as I don't plan to go down that route. Jol

Martin, no CAD skill needed with Templot generated files as you say. However, if you buy the two 3D printers needed then it would be pointless not to use them for other aspects of you model building activities, hence the "need" to learn how to design in 3D software. John, no doubt there are benefits to using Martin's jigs which the older designs can't provide as they had to be manufactured in a different way, probably forty or so years ago. I haven't found them too difficult to use and have been able to produce the P4 points for my layout (twenty nine plus a single slip) that have worked well and been reliable. I was able to use jigs owned by my local S4 Area Group, which have seen service with a number of modellers over the years. However, before that, I did build points without the use of filing jigs. Yes, you can obtain files for other products to use with your 3D printers but as is often the case, there will be things that aren't available if you want to model a particular railway, location or period in time. I have looked at the cost of 3D printers and to get a couple of the ones that are often recommended as being good beginners models would cost about £500. No doubt someone will challenge me on that but I have found that, where modelling tools are concerned, it is false economy to not buy good quality. However, as I have built the track that I need for my layout and am probably in that situation of SELE (stock exceeds life expectation) with the unbuilt kits I own I have little incentive to get into 3D design and printing. Don't however think that I am model railway Luddite, I have used a London Road Models RSU since they were introduced, have used laser cutting for my own designs of buildings and produced etched items for my own projects where practical. I was also a reasonably early user of Martin's Templot, in the days when you had to buy a license to use it. Jol

John, one thing about the headlong rush to produce things using new technology such as 3D printers is recognising how much you will use them for your modelling. The cost of S4/EMGS jigs is relatively high if you don't intend to build a lot of trackwork. Likewise the purchase price for3D filament and 3D SLA printers. While the latter can be used for more than creating track, filament printing is often too coarse for finer detail models. Both require learning how to get the best out of them and also 3D CAD skills to create what you want. All well and good if you are building a large layout or are a serial layout builder. For me those don't apply and building P4 track in the traditional way has been the best and most economic way (both in terms of time and expense). I was also fortunate in having access to the jigs without buying them, although I have produced vees and switch rails without them. To speed up building plain track in 60ft scale panels I had a simple jig laser cut, at very little cost. While I am no advocate of "cheap is best" it isn't always necessary to invest a lot in some aspects of railway modelling to achieve results. Jol

Comet list a motor/gearbox MGB1, which has a coreless motor with first stage brass bevel gears and two more stages of steel spur gears. Would that be it?

Not this Jubilee, I expect (not a Brassmasters kit).

There were others, not just GWR kits. Several LNWR carriages, Railmotor and in the "Limited Editions" a six wheel fish van.

Horner: No 'Pink Mercedes' risk in Red Bull/AlphaTauri F1 collaboration https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fri-horner-no-pink-mercedes-risk-in-red-bull-alphatauri-f1-collaboration/10553937/ Two teams sharing research and development. A great way to minimise the effect of the Budget Cap.

What's new?

If the photographer gets payment for selling photos of your artistic creation, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to contribute some of that to you? I have had no issue with people taking photos of my layout, especially when they have the courtesy to ask. However I would feel less so if they profit from it without asking. That would include someone taking a video to show on a YouTube channel for which they get payment, especially if, as is sometimes the case their film skills leave something to be be desired.

Hi Frank, IIRC the spacers are locater by half etched grooves, so probably not possible to relocate them. Jol Probably not the easiest task or best answer. The LRM Coal Tank kit is etched in .4 mm nickel silver so the K's running plate would be have thinned down to that. However if the K's casting is about 1.5mm or so thick (from memory I recall that their castings weren't as thick as the GEM ones, for example) it will raise the loco body by about 1.0mm which is possibly acceptable. Jol

For the small, specialist, trader it is a matter of choosing the right shows to attend. The very large shows attract a different profile of modeller to the smaller Society shows. The former are predominantly RTR buyers and are often attracted by the thought of getting a bargain from the competing RTR retailers or buying products their local shop doesn't carry. So the small kits and bits supplier is of little interest to them. As Chris M points out, stand rent is just one of the costs involved in trading at Warley or Alexander Palace and without enough buyers for your products, it isn't viable. Polybear mentions the Society shows (and other "fine-scale" shows such as York or Aylesbury Railex for example) which do attract sufficient customers to make it viable, despite often having the same travel and accommodation expenses. It is an indication of the increasing separation in the hobby between those that prefer to buy RTR/RTP models and those whose interest lies in building them from kits.

Seen on my layout in 2016 (and earlier). Photo courtesy Barry Norman/MRJ

If you want pre-group you need to go to one of the society shows (EM, P4, etc.). OO is, understandably , very largely dictated by RTR products. Despite some RTR products, there aren't sufficient to enable you to model a pre-group layout to any extent. You have to go where the kit/scratch builders display their layouts. In 2016 Warley hosted the S4 Society's 40th Anniversary display, when there were several pre-group layouts including my1907 LNWR layout (photo taken during Friday evening setting up, which is why Hywel and Tony are wearing their outdoor coats).

IIRC, the Lotus 7 kit, like the Mark VI before it, were originally intended for the Ford 1172 side valve engine. They were cheap, re4adily avail,able and there were lots of tuning bits available.

The LRM chassis was designed for a kit with an etched running plate, so while providing a more modern etched chassis, one issue you may have is that the loco body will sit a bit too high, owing to a thicker white metal running plate. The same probably applies to any white metal kit used with a chassis from etched an etched kit. You may also have to remove a bit of metal from the running plate and front splasher to get clearance for EM wheels This shows a LRM Coal Tank chassis, in this case built with Sharman P4 wheels and a Mashima 1224 motor mounted between the frames with a LRM 38:1 motor mount and gears. A Mashima 1024 would be better, which you might be able to get from Branchlines.

From modelling pre-group P4 I have got to know many of the small "specialist" traders over thirty years. Most gave up with the very large shows years ago. Partly due to costs and expenses but also because their customer base wasn't visiting those shows in any numbers. High cost, low sales. The increase in the RTR market with more suppliers, better detailed models, etc. has continued to move modellers' activities away from self sufficiency, kit building, etc. towards buying RTR/RTP items. Hence the need for the smaller suppliers to concentrate on other ways of promoting and selling their products. Fortunately the smaller or specialist society shows also still provide a platform for them. I am sure the Warley NEC show will continue successfully - despite the now traditional complaints - as it caters for the majority of modellers - as does Alexander Palace and the other very large shows.

Yes, it makes you wonder why John Redrup has bothered to keep those other designers ranges going, which would otherwise probably have sunk without trace. Of course someone might have designed new kits from scratch had they; 1:Been motivated to do so. 2: Have had the information and CAD software to do so. 3: Learned about design and manufacturing etch kits. 4: Been willing to investing doing so, given that existing or previous kits would have taken up some of the possible market sales. Sometimes a person will do design a new kit that duplicates an existing one, if they believe they can create a better product. If the supplier isn't too concerned about running a commercially viable operation (a retirement activity or w.h.y) then it is possible to do so on a break even basis. Nick has apologised for hijacking your thread. I disagree, I believe it is important to understand what is going on in the marketplace, for the benefit of both the customer and the suppliers we rely upon.

Nick, frankly I don't know. I don't think the etchers have scanning equipment. When CAD digital artwork became the norm, I believe that the etchers also disposed of their camera equipment used for hand drawn artwork as the special film was becoming rare . The "standard" production etch tool used by Grainge and Hodder, PEC, Micro Precision, etc. measures 18" X 12" with a useable area of 17" x 11" (tabloid size). I don't think the etchers have scanning equipment and that size is slightly larger than an A3 scanner. A quick search for scanning services turns up plenty who will scan documents, drawings and photos but no one that mentions scanning large negative/positive films. No doubt there is someone out there who can do it. The front and rear images then have to be accurately located on the CAD pages. I use CorelDraw and produce front and rear images for the tools. So while that is straightforward from scratch, getting two scanned images aligned accurately will take some care. So it's possible but I don't know fully how to go about achieving it. Next becomes the question of what needs changing. It needs someone familiar with how the kit goes together and what the scaled prototype dimensions are. There seems to be no shortage of prototype information now available as it seems that more research has been done and the information published (across all railway information) in recent years. However, it needs someone who has ready access to that (my library of LNWR material wouldn't be much help here). I still believe that a new kit from scratch might be easier. Of course that needs someone with the information, a relevant CAD programme, knowledge of the etch process, etc., experience of kit building and an understanding of the various compromises required to produce a 4mm kit to accommodate all three gauges. Jol

Something I have done on the kits I designed, provided space was available within the constraints of making most efficient use of the area of the etch sheet. Modern CAD software (I use CorelDraw) makes it very easy to copy/duplicate items and move them to spare space on the artwork. With older kits with hand drawn artwork it wasn't so easy. As Chas points out, sometimes it can be confusing if you think you have bits left over.So a part listing in the instructions identifying how many items are needed and how many spares are also supplied can help.

Of the London Road Models range of loco kits, 41 are LRM designs, although by several different designers, while 26 are from "absorbed" ranges including George Norton/Malcolm Crawley, Steve Barnfield and Iain Rice. Many of the absorbed kits had white metal casting of variable quality and were replaced with lost wax brass castings from new patterns. As Mike Meggison has pointed out, many of these kits were produced some years ago from hand drawn artwork which has usually been lost (usually not returned by the etchers after creating the etch tooling), although the production etch tools are still available. To upgrade a kit therefore calls for a new design from scratch. As you point out sales volumes of kits is low and relatively speaking always has been. So a new design for an existing kit is invariably not viable, the initial interest and sales having been when the kit was originally introduced. Kits from various suppliers often are by different designers, usually because they have good knowledge/information of the prototype being modelled. So if anyone with the considerable knowledge of B16s being shown on this thread would like to design a new kit, I am sure John Redrup would be happy to guide them through the design/etch and casting pattern processes to get a kit into production.

A new member for the "Still available new for less than half the price" club of ebay traders. A look though his list of items shows many such examples. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/126168599700?hash=item1d603c0c94:g:KHUAAOSws0JlQYDi

Sadly we have had to cancel our trip to Portsmouth so I won't be able to ask how the ferry trip was. We were supposed to be going to the IOW on Sunday but our visit had to be postponed which made the weekend trip too expensive for just the visit to the show.