Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Hello Dr.G.F Scratch building model locos is not rocket science, it is a minimum expertise with simple tools, an ability to study photographs and drawings and a lot of patience with a bit of determination. Like many things in life, the hardest part of the job is making a start.

A couple of years after building the 3P I got a new job in Stafford. I made friends in the new place so one day I showed them my loco. One of them wished he could do something like that. I was in lodgings then, only going home at weekends, so had plenty of spare time. I offered to show him how, so went to his house every Tuesday evening for a loco building session. We chose a simple engine, a Midland class M 0-6-0.

He had a few tools and with the ones I took with me we were set up, but I had to show him how to solder before we could make a start.

Without going into a lot of detail, we both ended up with an 0-6-0 engine and tender built to EM gauge, AND BOTH WORKED.

I left to take up another job in Scarborough this time, but when I left he was scratch building a LNWR G2 0-8-0

I joined the railway society in Scarborough and exactly the same thing happened. By this time I was married and had a house with a loft containing a model railway. Again a chap who became a friend and partner in crime for 42 years (before sadly passing away) expressed a wish to be shown how to "do it".

Like before, we built a loco each, this time for me it was a NER P2 in EM, for him it was a LNER J27 in 00.

Once we had an engine each, he was away, building a series of LNER locos B1 (with scratch built valve gear) G5, B16 etc etc.

The common factor in both these examples is that, once they had been shown that it wasn't so difficult, they had the confidence to do their own thing.

Sorry for high jacking your thread, Tony.

Derek

Derek,

           Please, high-jack away. 

 

Why folk don't try is beyond me, and the more such a situation occurs the 'art' of, particularly, loco-building will disappear. Returning to a theme, like you (I imagine) my scratch-building was born out of necessity, there being no RTR or loco kits to suit what I wanted. It's a a bit of a old chestnut, but how many times have you heard a modeller say 'the moment I scratch-built a loco, out came a kit and the moment I built a kit, out came an RTR example?

 

It's well known where my interests lie and 30 to 40 years ago, how else, but by scratch-building, was I going to be able to create my representations of all the ER locos? Mike Edge scratch-built built me an A2/2 and A2/3 (loco only) in 1975/'76. I looked at these, and non-figuratively took them apart. I thought 'I can do this' and did, building the A1/1 a year later. I also rebuilt both Mike's locos and, interestingly, they still get a run on Peterborough North. It was about this time that I met the late Brian van Meeteren, that most modest of men but a real example of a guy who had no formal metalwork training but just got on with it. More scratch-building followed - a K1, K1/1, O1, O4/8 (mainly scratch), B2, D49, along with kit conversions - A1s from A2s and W1 from A4, and so on. Most, if not all, have been written about down the years. 

 

Where's the need though now? Every single loco listed above is or has been available as a kit in the last few years. Conversions exist a-plenty for the Thompson Pacifics but the necessity for the true scratch-builder has almost gone (in 4mm mainstream) and the hobby is the poorer for it.

 

As for the learning of skills, I learned soldering techniques from my Dad. We used a gas-stove-powered iron of massive proportion, Baker's fluid and a big stick of solder. Metal was cut using tinsnips for larger areas (nibbling to within a twitch of the datum, then filing to finish - remember it's always the side of the line which contains least metal which takes up all the distortion), or sticking sheet metal (as a sandwich for, say, cabsides) to a piece of hardboard and cutting through with a piercing saw - blades snap with much less frequency. The Ahern book was the bible but those early locos did work, and work very well. 

 

Just as an anecdote to soldering, as a kid I had a Mamod stationary engine. At the same time, I read a book which made reference to superheating. The steam from the boiler on the Mamod was taken from the boiler straight to the oscillating cylinder, turning back to water almost immediately. All schoolboys know that water boils at 100 degrees C, and (apart from under pressure - is this right?) at that point you get steam - at 100 degrees. But, as my book stated, there's nothing to stop you increasing the temperature of the steam, effectively making it far more expansive and thus more efficient. So, I obtained some small-bore copper tube, cut the direct line from the boiler and inserted this tube, making sure that it passed through the meths burner several times before it reached the cylinder. The ends were soft-soldered in place, very neatly if I may say so. The machine then almost took off! However, being of youthful ignorance, it hadn't occurred to me that the melting point of my solder, although higher than 'ordinary' steam, was lower than the superheated stuff. The joints failed - steam and water spurted everywhere onto our 'posh room' carpet (why had I conducted the experiment in the front room, used only at Christmas, birthdays and family reunions?). Not only that, the hot water spread the burning meths, scorching the fibres of the carpet. Hands and fingers were hurt in the 'dampening down' operation, but nowhere near as much as my a***e was after parental retribution had been delivered. Not only that, my little engine was crushed (after cooling) beneath the paternal boot. Just think, had that occurred today my parents would have been incarcerated forever and I would have been placed in care. Guilty they'd be of non-supervision, giving a child a dangerous toy, physical assault, destruction of property and the cause of the need for extensive counselling of a minor. Interestingly, but under my supervision, I conducted the same experiment with my own sons using a Mamod traction engine, but this time on the garage floor! I know this is a bit off topic, but just a little bit of amusement I hope.

[Richard_A]

I know this is a bit off topic but in regards to building locos I've been collecting silver fox diesel models to detail/build even though there are much better detailed rtr out there simply enjoy messing around detailing them and I have a few steam loco kits which I have a go at every now and again. It is to me a very relaxing yet frustrating way to spend my spare time. So maybe sometime I'll try my hand at scratch building as it does look like a very good challenge

[Tony Wright]

I know this is a bit off topic but in regards to building locos I've been collecting silver fox diesel models to detail/build even though there are much better detailed rtr out there simply enjoy messing around detailing them and I have a few steam loco kits which I have a go at every now and again. It is to me a very relaxing yet frustrating way to spend my spare time. So maybe sometime I'll try my hand at scratch building as it does look like a very good challenge

I assume you mean scratch-building diesels? If you do, I take my hat off to you, so, please, have a go and see what happens. The reason I say this is because, in my opinion, diesels/electrics are so much more difficult. All those complex curves, grills, apertures, etc. Steam locos are little more than cubes, cuboids, cones and cylinders. 

 

Look back at the work of Mike Cole for inspiration - Sundown and Sprawling I think it was called.

[Richard_A]

Apologies for the confusion, I meant steam engines, but there is a long way to go with my modelling before I could/would contemplate such a task, but the spirit of getting stuck in and have a go is very much in my mindset.

[Mrkirtley800]

If anyone even contemplates building an engine from scratch, this thread will have done a very good job. The thing to remember is, do not be put off if the result of your labours doesn't match your dreams. My early efforts do not bear thinking about. In the mid fifties I became interested in the pre group scene, the Midland in particular due to my frequent trips into the Yorkshire Dales on my bike and later on my old Lambretta, seeing a lot of the Settle-Carlisle railway which fascinated me.

There wasn't much in the way of model locos then, Triang had brought out their crudePrincess and Jinty. K's were just starting up, but if you wanted a balanced fleet of engines you had to build them. I started with a Midland 2-4-0 (Johnson design). I was very pleased with it and proudly put it on the mantle shelf and sat down to look at it. Then it dawned on me, it didn't look right. The boiler, which should have been parallel to the footplate, sloped down from the firebox to the smokebox.

Oh dear.

My loco building doesn't match up with the present Hornby and Bachman efforts, with their crisp rivet detail, but at least they are mine and they work. The sense of satisfaction is enormous.

Derek

[Horsetan]

.....do not be put off if the result of your labours doesn't match your dreams. My early efforts do not bear thinking about. .....

Ha, you haven't seen my first effort - a Bulleid Light Pacific. Owing partly to the drawing I used (Beattie), the airsmoothed casing was too long to be a Light Pacific, and not long enough to be a Merchant Navy....

[Tony Wright]

If anyone even contemplates building an engine from scratch, this thread will have done a very good job. The thing to remember is, do not be put off if the result of your labours doesn't match your dreams. My early efforts do not bear thinking about. In the mid fifties I became interested in the pre group scene, the Midland in particular due to my frequent trips into the Yorkshire Dales on my bike and later on my old Lambretta, seeing a lot of the Settle-Carlisle railway which fascinated me.

There wasn't much in the way of model locos then, Triang had brought out their crudePrincess and Jinty. K's were just starting up, but if you wanted a balanced fleet of engines you had to build them. I started with a Midland 2-4-0 (Johnson design). I was very pleased with it and proudly put it on the mantle shelf and sat down to look at it. Then it dawned on me, it didn't look right. The boiler, which should have been parallel to the footplate, sloped down from the firebox to the smokebox.

Oh dear.

My loco building doesn't match up with the present Hornby and Bachman efforts, with their crisp rivet detail, but at least they are mine and they work. The sense of satisfaction is enormous.

Derek

Well said again Derek.

 

Once again the message comes across about the satisfaction to be derived from actually making things yourself. But, as has been admitted, the end results might not be as good as what's available RTR but the sense of 'ownership' will always be much greater. But, how will the potential scratch-builder of steam locos get on in the future, anyway. 

 

Sorry for the nostalgia trip but the following might be of interest. In 1977 (or about then), my wife and I spent a week in Paris, going by train, Hovercraft and train. When in London, I always stopped off in Kings Cross Models (EAMES) in York Way.I was contemplating building the A1/1, using the Roche drawing (big mistake, I know!). So, from that much-missed establishment I bought the raw materials - one eight brass for the frames, nickel silver for the bodywork, various sizes of brass/nickel silver section, a set of Romford wheels, axles and gears, cast double chimney, cast dome (banjo, later replaced with the right sort), turned safety valves and whistle, a Jamieson smokebox door, cylinders, Cartazzi frames, bogie and valve gear, plus anything else I thought was needed. I used a Wills A3 tender. So, apart from the tender, all those bits went to France, then back again, to be put together the following month.

 

At that time, I also visited EAMES in Reading regularly, plus whatever decent model shops I could find in my travels around the country. Locally, Modellers Mecca was of equal use to the loco builder and Roy Millership either had everything needed in stock or it could be obtained very quickly. Today, even though they might still exist, how many model shops still stock kits and bits. Can you still go to shows and there'll be someone there selling everything the scratch-builder needs? Since I haven't been to a show for over three years I don't know, but it's probably rarer. Mark Arscott tells me that the chap who used to turn his marvellous chimneys has had a stroke and can do no more. Thus, my advice, for what it's worth, is buy those bits and pieces while you can, from where you can.

 

But, those heady days of seeing 4mm layouts stocked with locos and stock which someone has actually made themselves are fast disappearing, but the model railway scene is the poorer for it in my opinion. And, if someone has hundreds of RTR locos - well done, but don't expect me to be too excited.

 

How reactionary is that? 

[Tony Wright]

Ha, you haven't seen my first effort - a Bulleid Light Pacific. Owing partly to the drawing I used (Beattie), the airsmoothed casing was too long to be a Light Pacific, and not long enough to be a Merchant Navy....

Beattie drawings?

 

Though beautifully presented, their best use was in a frame in an elegant study. An A4 with a wedged-fronted cab, B17s with ten-spoke bogie wheels and V2s with banjo domes?

Edited April 9, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Iain Popplewell]

  I'm not so sure the future of kit building is so dire.I've a feeling that the finescale end of the hobby has never been in a healthier state,perhaps even growing as a reaction to the plethora of RTR. layouts around.

CAD has considerably eased the production of etched kits in recent years and the internet has not just eased the sourcing of modelling bits and kits,but is allowing the manufacturer of kits to sell directly to their customers cutting out the middle man.Whether the emergent technologies of 3D printing etc. will have an effect remains to be seen.

On a less positive note it did occur to me that if the "wheel" manufacturers ceased production we'd all be sunk.Long may they continue.

[Barry O]

Look back at the work of Mike Cole for inspiration - Sundown and Sprawling I think it was called.

Yes Sundown and Sprawling.... we had some of Mikes diesels on Leeds Victoria - the Leeds Club layout. His Deltic had  two Japanese can motors and solid lead cast ends - it could pull anything!

 

Mike introduced me to the Sagami can motors to replace the Airfix Slimlines I fitted in my Q Kits Class 50... what a difference!

[Tony Wright]

  I'm not so sure the future of kit building is so dire.I've a feeling that the finescale end of the hobby has never been in a healthier state,perhaps even growing as a reaction to the plethora of RTR. layouts around.

CAD has considerably eased the production of etched kits in recent years and the internet has not just eased the sourcing of modelling bits and kits,but is allowing the manufacturer of kits to sell directly to their customers cutting out the middle man.Whether the emergent technologies of 3D printing etc. will have an effect remains to be seen.

On a less positive note it did occur to me that if the "wheel" manufacturers ceased production we'd all be sunk.Long may they continue.

Iain,

       Points taken, and, perhaps, I still live too much in the past at times. 

 

You're certainly right about the finescale end of  the hobby being quite healthy (more esoteric prototypes modelled where RTR might not serve quite so well?) and new technologies will always offer new possibilities.

 

You mention 3D printing. Some four years ago I witnessed a machine create a dome from 'scratch' in resin of some kind. The shape was just about perfect, requiring the minimum of cleaning up (though it didn't have a flange at the base). Forgive my ignorance, but the dome just appeared bit by bit inside what looked like a microwave. Size and shape parameters were 'programmed' into the thing, and away it went. 

For my Little Bytham project I need a 'proper' girder bridge to take the MR/M&GNR over the ECML. At the moment, it's a modified Airfix/Dapol product - the right length and width, but too high and too few bits of metal. I have all the drawings for the correct bridge and was told that the whole structure could be created by 3D printing for a price - perhaps £500.00. This was not so much for the actual creation of the bridge itself (in obvious segments) but for putting all the dimensions into the computer - making a sort of programme I suppose. Would this then be scratch-building? Obviously, I'd have to glue the bits together, but the amount of time needed to make the structure from brass would be horrendous. 

 

Returning to kit-building in general, perhaps it isn't so dire as some might believe, but DJH has introduced no knew 4mm kits for at least ten years now - their last one, the LB&SCR Atlantic will (probably) sell no more now that Bachmann has announced its introduction. SE Finecast has only upgraded kits from other ranges in recent years. The masters for FURY were started, but the pattern maker's untimely death put an end to that kit. Etched kits, I assume, require fewer units to be sold than mixed-media kits but what 'mainstream' prototypes are there to produce?

 

And, you're right about the wheels. Frank, of Romford fame is way beyond retirement age now! 

[Iain Popplewell]

Hi Tony,

 Thanks for the considered response to my posting.My feeling, and it only is a feeling, is that modelling is in a period of flux at the moment.(no pun intended.)What the future may hold has yet to be decided.

I think that the days of the white-metal kit are probably numbered.However as long as people are prepared to produce etched kits in small volumes of the more esoteric, but non the less desirable prototypes, and people are prepared to buy them I think kit-building has a future.Only time will tell and there will always be the scratch-builder who'll plough his or her own lonely furrow.

[MJI]

With the price of RTR shooting up higher and higher, I think the lure of a kit is returning, as you also get the fun of making rather than just buying.

 

I get more pleasure making a cheap but more or less accurate model look good, than just buying the best ready made.

 

I am happier also to saw lumps out of cheaper models!

[Paul Cram]

Well in respect of North Eastern Prototypes we couldn't be better served. Arthur is expanding his range of Etched kits and Dave Alexander is expanding his whitemetal range although I believe some parts are now etched. London Road Models seems to continue to add to the range. I don't build models very quickly so I have enough to keep me going for a long while yet but there is no rush as for me the pleasure is in seeing the model emerge form the flat metal or castings.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Paul Cram

[Horsetan]

.... if the "wheel" manufacturers ceased production we'd all be sunk. Long may they continue.

Do keep an eye on Ultrascale.....

[Nimbus]

Ha, you haven't seen my first effort - a Bulleid Light Pacific. Owing partly to the drawing I used (Beattie), the airsmoothed casing was too long to be a Light Pacific, and not long enough to be a Merchant Navy....

 

It was similar duff gen which scuppered my first scratchbuild too. I bought a second drawing part-way through, and couldn't reconcile the differences. It's not what you want to hear in the context of the thread, but Hornby replaced it with their recent L1. Mine won't be full-on samey though, as I bought Dave Bradwell's chassis kit at the first opportunity last September. 

 

I wonder if a resurgence of scratch-building locos would drive an improvement in drawing availability and trustworthyness? Researching from original works drawings is expensive and time-consuming, and with its restricted opening hours kicking in, I doubt we'd all fit in Search Engine.

 

The Nim.

[Nimbus]

On a less positive note it did occur to me that if the "wheel" manufacturers ceased production we'd all be sunk. Long may they continue.

 

It was emphasised at the time of C&L's takeover of the Exactoscale wheel range, that they were probably not profitable, and certainly would not be expanded as vigorously as previously. This rather undermined my confidence in my decision to standardise on them, and ability to source/afford them in the longer term. Or maybe I should preserve those I do already have, as an investment?

 

The Nim.

[Horsetan]

It was emphasised at the time of C&L's takeover of the Exactoscale wheel range, that they were probably not profitable, and certainly would not be expanded as vigorously as previously.....

Don't be surprised if that happens.

 

 

 

.... maybe I should preserve those I do already have, as an investment?

 

Sharman and Ultrascale wheels are already a form of alternative currency on eBay. Reminds me of Bitcoin. Maybe these are Bitwheels?

Edited April 9, 2014 by Horsetan

[Buhar]

For my Little Bytham project I need a 'proper' girder bridge to take the MR/M&GNR over the ECML. At the moment, it's a modified Airfix/Dapol product - the right length and width, but too high and too few bits of metal. I have all the drawings for the correct bridge and was told that the whole structure could be created by 3D printing for a price - perhaps £500.00. This was not so much for the actual creation of the bridge itself (in obvious segments) but for putting all the dimensions into the computer - making a sort of programme I suppose. Would this then be scratch-building? Obviously, I'd have to glue the bits together, but the amount of time needed to make the structure from brass would be horrendous. 

 

Hi Tony,

May I point you in the direction of this part of Ron Hegg's thead

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28293-manchester-central-clc-gn-warehouses-castlefield-viaducts/?p=296162&fromsearch=1&do=findComment&comment=296162

 

using a Cameo cutter. Now you might think it's cheating but no more than an etched fret is. You could well find a willing cutter from amongst the ranks.

[Clive Mortimore]

I assume you mean scratch-building diesels? If you do, I take my hat off to you, so, please, have a go and see what happens. The reason I say this is because, in my opinion, diesels/electrics are so much more difficult. All those complex curves, grills, apertures, etc. Steam locos are little more than cubes, cuboids, cones and cylinders. 

 

Look back at the work of Mike Cole for inspiration - Sundown and Sprawling I think it was called.

Hi Tony

 

I have posted before that I have scratchbuilt many diesels over the years. I was going to get some examples out of storage and photograph them, but I remembered there are quite a few in the photos that my friend Ian Metcalf took of my very old layout Pig Lane, model locos look better on a layout. Please have a look, they are not the worlds best but they filled a big gap when the RTR market would not have supported some of the classes I modelled. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/62823-pig-lane-or-should-it-be-i-am-sorry/ and it is all Mike Cole's fault, he was building the locos I trainspotted in the late sixties and what an inspiration him and his models were.

[jrg]

The effect of 3D printing and Cameo cutters is a massive de-skilling of effort required to produce a model.  The implications for the hobby are enormous, and I think ultimately will make model railways more appealing to a wider populace.  This can surely only strengthen the hobby.  Conversely, traditional skills are being neglected in the area of scratchbuilding, (Even though I would suggest that computer design and availability of components has seen track building become more popular, with the likes of EM and P4 crossing and slip assemblies becoming increasingly common).  It is regrettable that skills may be lost-the photograph and description of the K1 chassis is an example of what the scratchbuilder's art is all about.  It may well consist of thick brass frames, X04 motor plus worm gears and filed rail rods-all very reminiscent of the 1970's-but superbly well executed, and I bet utterly reliable.  Definitely what I prefer in the hobby. 

[buffalo]

The effect of 3D printing and Cameo cutters is a massive de-skilling of effort required to produce a model...

 

Whenever I see statements like this, I can only assume the writer has no knowledge of either approach. Do you really believe we are all born with CAD and 3D modelling skills and just have to push a couple of buttons to produce a finished model?

 

Traditional scratchbuilding involves research, design, production of parts, assembly and finishing. All require different skills. Research is much the same however we intend to produce the model. At the design stage, computer-based tools give us a way of producing shapes that are more dimensionally accurate than those produced from hand drawings. They may also allow us to check that parts fit together before they are produced. All of this requires at least as much skill in manipulating the software as hand drawing. A Cameo cutter merely replaces the cutting skills used in the production of parts. All very useful, though you won't get very far as a modeller without some hand cutting. As to 3D printing, again that only replaces some of the part production and assembly phases. In both cases, the result still needs a fair amount of finishing to compare with a good hand built model.

 

Personally, I've spent a great deal of time working with various forms of 3D modelling and CAD though I prefer to exercise mechanical skills in building models. Because I do have some of those skills, I know that computer aided methods are certainly not for dumbos.

 

Nick

[Tony Wright]

The effect of 3D printing and Cameo cutters is a massive de-skilling of effort required to produce a model.  The implications for the hobby are enormous, and I think ultimately will make model railways more appealing to a wider populace.  This can surely only strengthen the hobby.  Conversely, traditional skills are being neglected in the area of scratchbuilding, (Even though I would suggest that computer design and availability of components has seen track building become more popular, with the likes of EM and P4 crossing and slip assemblies becoming increasingly common).  It is regrettable that skills may be lost-the photograph and description of the K1 chassis is an example of what the scratchbuilder's art is all about.  It may well consist of thick brass frames, X04 motor plus worm gears and filed rail rods-all very reminiscent of the 1970's-but superbly well executed, and I bet utterly reliable.  Definitely what I prefer in the hobby. 

 

Though I know little or nothing (or even less!) about 3D printing and Cameo cutters, I'm not sure that 'de-skilling' is quite right. Perhaps different skills or even re-skilling might be more appropriate. The reason I say this is because both my sons (33 and 31 respectively) are designers, and though both are accomplished technical draughtsmen, both use CAD to design boats and aquaria equipment respectively. Occasionally I see something they might be working on on a laptop - it's absolutely bewildering as far as I'm concerned and the skills required (mechanically and intellectually) are way beyond my comprehension. Clearly, they take after their mother! 

 

Thank you for the praise about the K4 chassis (not K1). It is 'old-fashioned' scratch-builder's 'art' and it is utterly reliable, and it took a modicum of 'skill and expertise' to put together by 'traditional' means. However, when Dave Lewis and I generated kits for various carriages in his Southern Pride range (Dave did the hard work, I did the building and instruction-writing), at the same time as drawing carriages, if he'd drawn a K4 chassis out, and then had it etched, would that not have an element of scratch-building in it? The skill would be in producing the technical drawing to a larger size, then to be photographed to produce an etching master, and then the old-fashioned skills would be used in soldering the thing together. An etching bath would then have replaced the piercing saw in that respect. Different skills, I think you'll agree. 

 

In a similar vein (at least philosophically), the late (and great) John Horton used a pantograph miller to cut out the parts for his peerless Scale Seven locos. The great skill there was in making the Plastikard patterns for the miller to follow. These patterns were hand-made, to a larger size than the finished product, glued together in sandwich form. Suppose they could have been made by Cameo cutters - though the hand-made aspect of making the patterns might have gone, somebody would still be needed to write the programme and drive the machine. And, nothing has replaced soldering for fixing sheets of brass and nickel silver together. 

 

One could go on about all sorts of progress - don't get me started on photography for instance. 

 

What I really want to reiterate is the notion of actually making models for yourself. Instead of broadcasting to the world how marvellous some latest RTR offering is (and it might be), actually have a go at making something for yourself. If computer know-how and manipulation have been involved, so what? As long as you've made the finished thing yourself! And don't go on about lack of skill and all that guff. Why are you (the generic article) in the hobby anyway, unless you're actually prepared to make something? 

[Tony Wright]

Just received Hornby's L1 67777 for assessment.

 

It would appear that it's been made by a different factory than earlier models. Notice any differences? 

 

ABOVE. This was the first BR black one from three or more years ago.

 

 

ABOVE. Now the latest one, a full review of which will be appearing in BRM soon.

 

 

ABOVE. It was also done in LNER green

 

ABOVE. To return to a theme, this is my original L1, built and painted by me umpteen years ago from an ECJM (later ABS) kit. Not as good as the Hornby version I'll admit (though it runs slightly smoother) but at least I made it and have had it for a long time. 

Edited April 10, 2014 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

67777 now has the blister over the firebox.