James

Obivously I can't quote pounds and pence, but of the options, I think this represents one of the cheaper ways to build a model.

I was genuinely curious about the cost as I am always conscious of how much I spend - with a young family I often struggle to justify hobby spending to myself!

I am aware of the time constraints involved by large projects, but time is not really what was being demonstrated here. This approach demands a good amount of time to get it right. I imagine there are a range of reasons why one would commision a model, all equally valid. One thing a commision is not though is cheap, nor should it be, the results speak for themselves and I dont think anyone was questioning why someone would want to commision a model, more give you an alternative should this not be the direction you wish to take for whatever reason, that is not for anyone to judge really except the modeller themselves. Obviously what you save in money you lose in time like you suggested which I suppose it what makes it an option rather than a singular methodology for the hobby. There is never a way that suits ALL criteria (cheap, quick, creatively satisfying etc) It's all about what suits you and what makes you tick as a modeller.

Often people would commission a professional to undertake would which would allow them to do the bits they liked themselves. I have ballasted a layout purely because its owner, for whom I'd done a few diesels, didn't like doing it! That freed up his time to get on with other aspects.

For 'layout locos' as Iain Rice calls them, conversions liek this have real potential - even from the professional's point of view as fleets can be built up more quickly than building entitely from kits.

As I see things, this is a rather terrific demonstration on how one can create a non rtr loco type which looks good without it costing a fortune.

Out of interest, how much would the total be if all components were bought new?

Some don't have that sort of cash. It's not nessesarily an opposite side to the hobby, it merely requires a different approach to the same goal a bit of creativity in the methodology involved.

You'll actually find that many who commission models are doing so as their time is lacking - even with plentiful time if you tackle a large project it will require large investments of time. My old customers included many like this.

The defining difference is if you have a kit, you have alot of the decisions made for you into where to source the parts, detailing differences aside. Detailing differences are the extra mile a specific modeller goes to make a specific locomotive.

If you 'build from kits' instead of 'kit building' then youhave many of the same decisions when it comes to the best parts to use.

How have we come to a state of affairs where a more accurate and ready to fit component is decried for the material it is made in?

I think we've been there for a long time!

This is why DJH made the switch from full white metal kits to providing major sheet metal components, such as cab sides, as etchings. Selecting the correct material is a key part of kits I feel, certainly the better ones - waiting to be built for my Dad is a D49 which was made by McGowen - everything is w/m, even the rods and valve gear! Thankfully things have changed since then!

I'm afraid if you mention budget then other factors come into it. Three key areas for having a successful layout; time, money, skill. Take one out and the others can compensate.

However, without the budget then you need the skill to produce the model. Then it becomes hard to compare it with a full professional job as this ceases to be an option for the cash strapped modeller.

If you'd just simply said you can't afford a professional build so you were having a go yourself, it would have come across quite differently. Or even simply, 'I'm building a model of this loco using these parts' - matter of fact modelling is the way to go

You seem to be having a go for mere mention of "cheque book modeller" as opposed the actual context of my post:

It didn't need mentioning - surely the issue to discuss is this method as an alternative to building from kits or from scratch?

The DJH and Proscale kits are significantly more expensive if you factor in who builds it, at what price, and with what wheels, gearbox and motor combination, and it's a fact that if you can afford to have one built and finished professionally, then undoubtedly you'll get a better Thompson Pacific.

More expensive maybe, but more freedom to taylor the model to your exact needs? Why do you need someone to build it? Looking at Tim's thread the key saving is one of time - finishing a conversion requires a very similar skill set to finishing a kit off to an acceptable standard. Have you seen Chris Pendlenton's model of 60505 Thane of Fife? He didn't pay someone, just a lot of practice and skills developed over the years. Probably the best model I've seen or read about which has portrayed one of Thompson's pacifics.

If you look at Tim's thread he's carefully chosen components which maximise the result (such as the etched cab sides) with regards the effort and time required. I don't think he'll mind me saying (and if he does, he's known me long, so tough!) that a full scratch built model by someone of the calibre of Chris Pendlenton will always have a bit more finesse than the RTR conversion, but as layout locos as part of an overall scene Tim's will work perfectly.

My point was that this way of building one allows those with less deep pockets (myself included) to build or have built a Thompson Pacific more economically. Perhaps "cheque book modeller" as a term was ill advised but I was in no way denigrating anyone who does have deep pockets for modelling. In fact I'd love to have the cash to be one myself, and I say as much in the blog entry above.

You're not comapring like with like - a RTR conversion you do yourself will always be cheaper than a professionally built loco!

I think it was ill advised to even mention a 'cheque book modeller' - it took away from the model concerned.

Having read about Graeme King's conversion since I first saw them on the LNER forum, I've found the threads, notably Tim's, very interesting. The 'kit bashing' element appeals to me, and it's a great step on the way to more involved conversions and building from kit. However, it just seems shame to bring in whole cheque-book-modeller thing into it.

You have also convinced me that the main issue (as I suspected) with the Bachmann frames are those hideous springs!

Now we need you to move north, move your modelling forward to the early nineties and join our area group!

The bogie frames look amazing! But I would question your sanity for attempting it!

This is a lovely post!

Along the lines of something I'd been thinking about recently - I became an Archers listener once I began working in a singalbox on my own with the radio for company! I think the area has real potential for acting as the setting for models. Ray Earl's layouts used the names, although LNWR based and, of course, Frank Dyer's Borchester Market used the name too. Though his geographical placement of Borchester is some way out from where the BBC consider it to be.

Adam, both look lovely

The brakegear on the tank looks especially good

I have a spare set of high level air pipes from a Hornby 09 if you were interested in them!

Looking very nice - the brake cylinders are nice aren't they?!

I do wish they were available seperately as I would have bought a large quantity!

I love the countdown markings for the tamper operators! Fantastic stuff!

Must have been an enthusiastic tech though; I only ever countdown from three sleepers away!

If it's worth my mentioning it, I used dilute acrylic matt varnish on Auchinraith and it's still going strong after 3 years, 2 of which on the expo circuit.

But that's EM - P4 ballast is quite different...

Incidently, with the change of the formula for Kleer, could discussions about it be a dead end? There may be a lot of worth in investing things like acrylic varnishes and readily available glues now.

Adam, that looks superb! I like that a lot!

What's happened to the 25 then? I rather liked it!

Jon, it's only a small mis-alignment.

You can just see it in this view I think - it's less than 0,5 mm but it is there. It's one of those things which is hard to spot, though it may not look quite right; but once you see it, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Have a closer look; if you decide to realign them it'll allow you to really reduce the gap between body and bogie frames.

Jim, from my own experience of Deltics I actually think you need to do both to the Bachmann model - then you can replicate the very small gap between the body and bogies.

On the only Deltic I've done the sideframe benefitted from being moved in slightly and raised about 0,5 mm - they're the same design as the 37 frames. The newer class 37 frames just need narrowing - these are a new design - the ones from the all axle drive locos.

With the drop it won't be noticable but this does over emphasise the gap between the body and bogies. The main thing is that your Deltic looks heavy like a 100 ton plus loco sitting right down on its underpinngs

The Deltic looks much improved! Did you realign the bogie sideframes too?

For fine chain try craft stores for fine jewelary chain; my mum deals with jewelary at craft fairs and got me some rather fine chain which I've used on my class 37s -

Chain from these soruces doesn't seem to attract the odd premimum which chain from model suppliers seems to have.

That looks rather nice - I do like the Tyne Dock ore workings

May I make one suggestion for the weathering? The motion is very 'matt' and I think it would really enhance the appearance if you add grease/oil to help add texture in this area.

Rich, before adding the powders hd you applied any weathering using paint at all?

Sorry the curse of dyslexia meant I missed the reference to the Hollywood Foundry chassis - will it be to P4 standards? It sounds like an interesting option but I'm interested to know the cost for possible use on some of my own projects.

Simon,

Have you thought about remotoring the loco? For the ultimate 92 it might be worth considering.

That Easitrac looks very good. One thing that struck me while looking at the 2mmSA site is that it seems expensive compared to Peco track. Now I know it looks a million times better, and the outlay is going to be worth it, but from a tight budget point of view, how does it compare?It looks so good that it tempts me a bit more each time I see pictures of it

If you could get suitable gauges you could always use the 2FS components used for copperclad based track but build to a gauge of 9mm. I csn't see any reason why it would work - you'd get a choice of wood and concrete sleepers and a choice of BH or FB rail. It's not too expensive either, just requires time.