Wright writes.....

[Clive Mortimore]

Interesting comments .

I still don't understand why some people seem to be  beat their selves up about using r.t.r Locos, Stock and anything else for sale . If the item exists and is good (as most current r.t.r is) why on earth not use use it?.

I see no logic it still spending double or more on a kit , then the time building, painting ,lining etc when a perfectly useable item is available. Buy the item you need and then build kits (if needed ) for anything else.

Thinking on the building of kits,  surely these perfectionists should be scratch building everything anyway?? How many of the kits are that accurate to the prototype when they are built?

I can remember a build of a A4 kit that would not go around any kind of curves when finished. Ok accurate to the extreme, but unless it sits in a Glass case what the point of building it ?

Everything in OO Model Railways is a compromise to the actual scale of track ,wheels widths, etc.

Ok ,the Hornby valve gear as an example is not perfect but for 95% of the owners I expect they understand a compromise has to be made on design and construction as the costs of that little bit of extra detail would be not be justified , the same applies to bogie wheels that are made to a price and to go around radius 2 curves on train sets , the same people wouldn't be bothered about some missing wire either.

Thickness of tender/cab sides in plastic is thinner than the battleship quality whitemetal sides of many kits. How many whitemetal kits even made in conduction with etched brass parts can compare with the quality of the plastic mouldings on r.t.r. Look as an example the quality of the Hornby LNER L1 ,compared with the old whitemetal kit of the same loco simply light years ahead.  Etched Brass is thinner but at a much higher cost and would not be viable for use in any volume  r.t.r product. How many owners of such r.t.r locos actually know about the very minor compromises or are actually bothered anyway? They get something that looks like the item they want and think no more about it.

R.t.r manufactures are there to serve the general consumer ,not specialist modellers , they do so by providing a reasonable product at a price at which they hope will sell. 

Hi Mick

 

Scratchbuilder........not perfectionist. Just enjoying my hobby as I go along.

 

I do fully agree with why make something when there is a suitable RTR on the market ....................................why did I make a Brush type 2, and a English Electric Type 3? No, I seem to have got myself there

[St Enodoc]

it's just a case of making the boards, making the track, making the buildings, doing the scenery, representing a canal, making the civil engineering bits and the signals (including a banner repeater). Wiring should present no problems, and that's that.

Say it quickly like that and it doesn't sound so bad.

[St Enodoc]

Buy the item you need and then build kits (if needed ) for anything else.

That's exactly my philosophy too. It doesn't just apply to rolling stock of course.

[Chimer]

[snip]

I still don't understand why some people seem to be  beat their selves up about using r.t.r Locos, Stock and anything else for sale . If the item exists and is good (as most current r.t.r is) why on earth not use use it?.

I see no logic it still spending double or more on a kit , then the time building, painting ,lining etc when a perfectly useable item is available. Buy the item you need and then build kits (if needed ) for anything else.

[snip] 

 

I'm usually broadly on your side in this argument.  As I couldn't make a half-decent fist of an Airfix Spitfire 50 years ago, and now have much worse eyesight and shakier hands, I don't fancy my chances with anything more complicated than a Metcalfe building these days, but I can still get substantial satisfaction from putting these together with wood, wiring and things from a model shop to produce something that reminds me of what I liked about railways back in the day.  So I bridle a bit when I read comments which suggest I can't possibly get any satisfaction from my model railway if I don't build loco kits or at least butcher RTR items.  I can, and do.

 

But if someone actually enjoys doing the things I wouldn't dream of taking on, involving hand-eye co-ordination, solder and precision, then of course it is logical to do so regardless of the relative cost, even if the end result is less accurate.  Especially if perhaps you don't enjoy some of the other bits of the hobby (like working out the electrics, say, which I find fascinating, and think I'm quite good at) or rate having an operationally interesting layout below the joy of building locos or whatever.

 

Each to his own.  It will be fascinating to follow Tony's new venture as he takes on the things he has previously "bought in", albeit using his skills as the currency rather than hard cash.

 

On Stanley On!!

 

Chris (perhaps a Model Railway Constructor rather than a Railway Modeller)

[coachmann]

I expect we all have our little foibles and pet dislikes. Because I anticipated building quite a number of GWR D121 brake third coaches for customers, I had a whole kit drawn up on CAD for etching rather than use Comet sides, which frankly would have taken too long to build and would not be commercial. But I had not left a set of parts for myself and so I started building a D121 from Comet sides today. The late Geoff' and I often had discussions about coach kits over the phone and knew my preference for etched-in droplights. However, he told me modellers prefered separate drop lights.  All I ever read is modellers have half-finished coaches lying about the place, or have been building one for several months, or simply consider coaches too much trouble to build. Gawd knows why thye prefer laboriously soldering in separate droplights.........  I'll bet I build more coaches in a week than all Comets customers put together.

 

I've ground away the tops of the droplights so that they will not prevent the roof's rebate from sitting down correctly. Even so I will still be faced with the job of fitting lots of bits of glazing material in between the droplights once it is painted. Surely the easier a kit is to build, the better....... then folk can get onto the next one!  I'm thinking I should have asked my CAD designer to produce lots of LMS sides-only with etched -in droplights but it's too late now.

Edited August 25, 2016 by coachmann

[manna]

G'day Gents

 

Just to pick up on Tony's point about locations on the ECML and layout size, who needs a station, goods yard etc. there are many locations that could me modelled on the ECML, Woolmer Green, you have a overbridge, signal box, curved underbridge, and a tunnel-mouth, that would surely fit into less than 25', what about the other end of that tunnel, here you have a tunnel-mouth 100yds of plain track then another tunnel-mouth.

 

Or if you want a harder project, try Belle Isle, between Gasworks Tunnel and Copenhagen tunnel. there are many locations along the ECML, that are crying out to be modelled.

 

Terry (AKA manna)

[Headstock]

Interesting comments .

I still don't understand why some people seem to be  beat their selves up about using r.t.r Locos, Stock and anything else for sale . If the item exists and is good (as most current r.t.r is) why on earth not use use it?.

I see no logic it still spending double or more on a kit , then the time building, painting ,lining etc when a perfectly useable item is available. Buy the item you need and then build kits (if needed ) for anything else.

Thinking on the building of kits,  surely these perfectionists should be scratch building everything anyway?? How many of the kits are that accurate to the prototype when they are built?

I can remember a build of a A4 kit that would not go around any kind of curves when finished. Ok accurate to the extreme, but unless it sits in a Glass case what the point of building it ?

Everything in OO Model Railways is a compromise to the actual scale of track ,wheels widths, etc.

Ok ,the Hornby valve gear as an example is not perfect but for 95% of the owners I expect they understand a compromise has to be made on design and construction as the costs of that little bit of extra detail would be not be justified , the same applies to bogie wheels that are made to a price and to go around radius 2 curves on train sets , the same people wouldn't be bothered about some missing wire either.

Thickness of tender/cab sides in plastic is thinner than the battleship quality whitemetal sides of many kits. How many whitemetal kits even made in conduction with etched brass parts can compare with the quality of the plastic mouldings on r.t.r. Look as an example the quality of the Hornby LNER L1 ,compared with the old whitemetal kit of the same loco simply light years ahead.  Etched Brass is thinner but at a much higher cost and would not be viable for use in any volume  r.t.r product. How many owners of such r.t.r locos actually know about the very minor compromises or are actually bothered anyway? They get something that looks like the item they want and think no more about it.

R.t.r manufactures are there to serve the general consumer ,not specialist modellers , they do so by providing a reasonable product at a price at which they hope will sell. 

Hi Mick,

I use some RTR  stuff, it's a great time saver, although I like to divest them of their more clunky bits. I tend to take a page out of the LMS book of scrap and build so RTR items are inevitably replaced by kit built items. Regarding the cost of building against buying, I would say that the cost is absorbed by the time spent in construction. So that the cost of a couple of kits is all I require to spend for an entire year of construction enjoyment. I have used the word kit but to be more accurate my own method is to get bits and bobs from all over, I find this more enjoyable than following a set of kit instructions and also means I can achieve a more accurate result. It is interesting that you mention white metal, but it is not inevitable that it is inferior to plastic. Did you know that the tender side sheets on the Hornby B1 are actually thicker than the equivalent nu cast kit from forty odd years ago?

 

You make a good point about the Hornby L1, it is far superior to the same companies A3. However, there is still plenty of room for improvements to be made by an enterprising modeler. A conversion to the prototype would be a fun project and the only one of the class that would be acceptable to my own modeling time and place. I'm currently building the Gresley full brake below, why do I bother when Hornby already makes one? The same reason that Tony is building his B17 and also the RTR version is as flawed as the white metal kits you mention in your post. Fortunately, I can't build as fast as Larry otherwise I would spend far too much money.

[richard i]

Carrying on with the subject of RTR locos, I'm happy to report that those who've bought the ones I've modified are extremely happy with them. Modifications have included replacement deflectors (where appropriate), close-coupling of loco to tender, replacement bogie/pony wheels, lamps fitted, a crew added, tenders coaled, renumbering/renaming, the addition of wiggly pipes and weathering. Several have appeared in the model press already and a couple are due to feature. 

 

The main point (as I've stressed in my articles) is that nothing I've done is beyond the determined beginner or less-experienced modeller. I honestly get tired of some of the excuses given why folk won't attempt to do things for themselves. I understand the reluctance to potentially spoil something costing well over £100.00, and I also understand how some can be time poor, cash rich, and so commission items. On a personal level, I cannot see the satisfaction in the latter (unless a large part of a project is your own work), though I have been part of that business in the past. 

 

Now, with reference to part of the above, it is my intention in the coming time to build a whole layout virtually by myself. Having banged the drum over and over again about personal modelling, what better way to 'put my money where my mouth is' by doing it. Little Bytham is really nearing completion and building it has been a wonderful journey involving many friends. Having many friends round to operate it is a splendid experience and great fun. However, I do miss exhibiting layouts. Yes, I'm a tiny, tiny cog in Grantham's forthcoming exhibition life, but (other than painting the backscene and making some locos for it) it's the work of others; work to a very high standard, as will be seen at Woking and Warley in the coming months.

 

Lugging big layouts around like Stoke Summit and Charwelton is now well in the past, and LB (though capable of being dismantled on my demise) goes nowhere. So, something smaller, though not too small. A prototype ECML location is definitely out because I'm looking at something no more than 25' x 10' - way, way too much compression of any kind to be believable. Thus, a secondary ER main line, but based on a prototype. As a boy, if the pocket money didn't stretch as far as a day-return to Retford, I'd spend the day at Kiveton Park, on the old MS&LR main line between Sheffield Victoria and Retford/Gainsborough/Lincoln and beyond. It's there that I saw CLUMBER and GAYTON HALL on the boat train, and latterly the ER Brits. Not only that, but the D11s in the last years (the same ones I'd previously seen at Chester Northgate), all the various 2-8-0s, B1s, the EE Type 4s on 'The Master Cutler', plus loads of 0-6-0s and (dare I say it?) a variety of DMUs. All the stuff I've already got! Passenger and freight stock I have plenty of, so it's just a case of making the boards, making the track, making the buildings, doing the scenery, representing a canal, making the civil engineering bits and the signals (including a banner repeater). Wiring should present no problems, and that's that. I've written that LB is a project for the rest of my life, but I'm living longer than expected!

 

If anyone has any information regarding Kiveton Park, I'd be delighted to receive it. I'll be writing about the project, so all will be credited.

 

Many thanks in anticipation.  

Tony

I have searched my GCR books and it is going to need a decent dig around. Even the Dow trilogy only has one mention on p55 of book two on Kiveton park

I will continue to look though.

Richard

[micklner]

Hi Mick,

I use some RTR  stuff, it's a great time saver, although I like to divest them of their more clunky bits. I tend to take a page out of the LMS book of scrap and build so RTR items are inevitably replaced by kit built items. Regarding the cost of building against buying, I would say that the cost is absorbed by the time spent in construction. So that the cost of a couple of kits is all I require to spend for an entire year of construction enjoyment. I have used the word kit but to be more accurate my own method is to get bits and bobs from all over, I find this more enjoyable than following a set of kit instructions and also means I can achieve a more accurate result. It is interesting that you mention white metal, but it is not inevitable that it is inferior to plastic. Did you know that the tender side sheets on the Hornby B1 are actually thicker than the equivalent nu cast kit from forty odd years ago?

 

You make a good point about the Hornby L1, it is far superior to the same companies A3. However, there is still plenty of room for improvements to be made by an enterprising modeler. A conversion to the prototype would be a fun project and the only one of the class that would be acceptable to my own modeling time and place. I'm currently building the Gresley full brake below, why do I bother when Hornby already makes one? The same reason that Tony is building his B17 and also the RTR version is as flawed as the white metal kits you mention in your post. Fortunately, I can't build as fast as Larry otherwise I would spend far too much money.

 

 

On checking the one B1 Nucast tender I own (actually being towed by an A2/1) the sides are 1.42mm thick compared to a New Hornby B1 Tender at 1.24mm.

 

Then you look at the detail and quality  on both versions. Nucast basically a lump of whitemetal ,very little and what is there is present is in very clumsy detail, and very heavy for something just being towed . Hornby B1 simply superb, fine side raves, fire iron tunnel , riveting and  actual detail to base of water filler and Toolboxes and that is just the top of the Tender.

 

I have  Black and Apple Green versions of the B1, the lining is far beyond anything a professional painter could ever hope to achieve . 

 

As to the Full Brake what is actually wrong with the Hornby version ?. They have sorted out the Tumblehome shape and the Beading positions on this later moulding. I have seen comments relating to the Comet side etches being too thin and easily buckled ?.

 

I happily build kits and modify r.t.r e.g Hornby A4 to W1 , A3 to A1/1, Bachmann A2 to A2/2 A2/3 versions using Resin and etched parts . I agree re kits being a enjoyable build with occasional problems and challenges , that is when they nearly get chuck of the nearest window !! It hasn't happened yet lol.

 

However if its available in r.t.r why bother building the same item, unless the item is a total dog of which a few sadly still exist from the 1990's such as the recent new chassis on 20 year old A4 ,V1, V2  and Ivatt bodied  efforts by Bachmann.  The problem then is there a kit of some of those even available nowadays? McGowan did a whitemetal "kit" of the V1 years ago which was also dire in the extreme. No idea re the Ivatt as not my area of modelling.

 

I had a SE Finecast A4 again compared to the Hornby version simply no comparison in quality and shape. The Tender was simply awful detail and weighed a ton . It went via ebay to a new home as did a K's P2 Earl Marischal which was simply appalling. Imagine trying to get that to move with supplied K's overheating motor !!

 

 

The main thing is enjoy what you are doing !!

[LNER4479]

Now, with reference to part of the above, it is my intention in the coming time to build a whole layout virtually by myself.

 

I'm looking at something no more than 25' x 10' - way, way too much compression of any kind to be believable. Thus, a secondary ER main line, but based on a prototype. As a boy, if the pocket money didn't stretch as far as a day-return to Retford, I'd spend the day at Kiveton Park, on the old MS&LR main line between Sheffield Victoria and Retford/Gainsborough/Lincoln and beyond. It's there that I saw CLUMBER and GAYTON HALL on the boat train, and latterly the ER Brits. Not only that, but the D11s in the last years (the same ones I'd previously seen at Chester Northgate), all the various 2-8-0s, B1s, the EE Type 4s on 'The Master Cutler', plus loads of 0-6-0s and (dare I say it?) a variety of DMUs. All the stuff I've already got!

 

If anyone has any information regarding Kiveton Park, I'd be delighted to receive it. I'll be writing about the project, so all will be credited.

 

Many thanks in anticipation.  

Sounds like a great idea, Tony. Look forward to seeing it grow over time.

 

A quick search on the internet threw up this website:

http://www.kivetonwaleshistory.co.uk/heritage/the-railways/introduction-2

 

Plenty of information on the railways around that area including pictures (if you hunt around a bit).

[chris p bacon]

 I'm looking at something no more than 25' x 10' 

 

25 x 10 !...........Blimey Tony that's rather large for a single builder. Sandy is 27'x10 and is taking a lot of (enjoyable) time, although I will admit I chose a rather bonkers prototype for a single handed build.

I don't know your choice of location but interested to see it develop.

[Clive Mortimore]

Kit verses RTR.

 

I have in the past owned quite a few D63xx (class 22) locos. I have built MTK kits, running on Lima H0 class 33 chassis. I have a MTK kit which I brought made powered by two Tri-ang Hymek bogies, it runs like a dream very smooth and it can run very very slow without jerking. I have cut and shut several Hornby class 29 bodies, I think I made most variations of the class. Again mainly using Lima class 33 chassis.  Except one that was mounted on a EMD F3 chassis of a make I cannot remember, it nearly ran a well as the MTK loco on the Hymek bogies. The Lima chassis locos ran well and had I had a roundy-roundy layout they would have been very good on through trains.

 

I now have one of the Dapol models, it is far better looking than any of the ones I have built in the past. It runs very well, not quite as good as the very very slow speed the Hymek powered MTK loco can achieve but then it has a slow speed that is acceptable for a locos moving around an engine shed. It was purchased as part of the stock for Ranelagh Bridge layout. It runs alongside the MTK loco and the remaining Hornby cut and shut.

 

Conclusion.

 

The MTK kits were not the easiest to build, and my efforts were not the best looking locos, so were replaced as time went by with the Hornby cut and shuts.

 

The one purchased already made is OK.

 

The Hornby cut and shuts were great to do as once I had the body the right length I could build and version I liked. The one I have kept is one of the first six with differing body grilles. Most were disposed of during stock downsizing exercise. At the time the Lima chassis was readily available and affordable.

 

The Dapol model is just good.

 

Did I enjoy building the ones that needed to be built? Yes, even the MTK ones when they were finished.

 

Did/do I enjoy viewing them? Yes, after I said good bye to the MTK ones I built.

 

Did/do I enjoy running them? Yes.

 

Does it matter which route I have taken to get to enjoying having some D63xx's? No as all had their positives.

 

I never even considered scratchbuilding Baby Warship, maybe because of the Hornby 29 being available, and needing the bogies for baby Deltics. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Clive Mortimore

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Tony,

 

You may find this useful.  I stitched it together from several screen grabs of the 1956 1:2500 OS map from Old Maps UK.  This, and the National Library of Scotland maps collection are fantastic resources for those of us interested in prototypical track planning.  

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

G'day Gents

 

Just to pick up on Tony's point about locations on the ECML and layout size, who needs a station, goods yard etc. there are many locations that could me modelled on the ECML, Woolmer Green, you have a overbridge, signal box, curved underbridge, and a tunnel-mouth, that would surely fit into less than 25', what about the other end of that tunnel, here you have a tunnel-mouth 100yds of plain track then another tunnel-mouth.

 

Or if you want a harder project, try Belle Isle, between Gasworks Tunnel and Copenhagen tunnel. there are many locations along the ECML, that are crying out to be modelled.

 

Terry (AKA manna)

Terry,

 

You're quite right, and I've rather made a mess of my reasoning, for which I apologise.

 

What I should have said (hindsight being a wonderful commodity) is that I would not (now) model a prototype ECML location which could not be fitted (accurately?) into a footprint of less than 30' x 10'.

 

Showing my usual hypocrisy, Stoke Summit was only a third of the length it should have been (though 90' of exhibition layout would not have proved very show-friendly), but the important point was that scale-length trains could be accommodated without their filling the scene. The limiting feature (which I've mentioned before) was the way, way too-tight visible curve at the south end. As someone has mentioned, model railways are a compromise, so that's my excuse.

 

There are several locations on the ECML which could be accommodated in less than 30'; there are (were?) two overbridges north of Barkston which are less than a train-length apart, but I doubt if a model of the location (to dead scale) would be successful as a layout, either operationally or for spectators.

 

As I've mentioned before, Little Bytham is a twitch under 15" short of dead scale (in 32' x 12'). Had I not wanted the MR/M&GNR bit to be a circuit, it would have been dead scale. What it means is that any too-tight curves are not visible as the trains come on to/go off stage. This is vital for realism for me. Getting a scale-length express train round curves which would only be tolerated in a colliery can be done (I do it) but not in the scenic section. Thus, if the only way one can fit a prototype location into a given space is by having too-tight curves going on/off stage, then that's not for me. It is a personal view, and others can please thermselves, but it doesn't 'work' for me, especially when taking pictures.  

Edited August 26, 2016 by Tony Wright

[grob1234]

Tony, where might you put this new layout of yours?

 

Little Bytham may be nearing the final stages but will it ever be fully complete? I bet you'll always want to tinker with something on it, even if it does appear compete. I hope that when the time comes that I too will be able to enjoy a healthy and active retirement, little way to go just yet though....

 

On another, completely unrelated note, I have in the past been critical of some of our smaller suppliers within the hobby. However, I also feel it is important to highlight when one of these companies offers excellent customer service, and I am posting this here as I know it is well read and will gain good exposure. I don't wish to start a debate on suppliers, merely to highlight a great approach to business.

 

At the end of July, I placed an order with Fox Transfers. By about the 20th August the order had not arrived, and although the postage takes a little while longer to Hong Kong, it's not normally that slow. I sent an email to Fox explaining the problem. I received an almost instant reply offering to resend my order, recorded delivery, completely free of charge. No quibbling, no arguing, just straight up great service. Today I received my transfers. Needless to say I'm delighted, and as a result I'll recommend Fox to my friends, as I am doing here. Of course if the 'lost' set does show up then I'll return it to them, I don't need two sets. Their honest approach to business means that I'll be returning many more times in the future and is a great advert for our hobby. Thanks Fox!

[grob1234]

Tony,

 

You may find this useful.  I stitched it together from several screen grabs of the 1956 1:2500 OS map from Old Maps UK.  This, and the National Library of Scotland maps collection are fantastic resources for those of us interested in prototypical track planning.  

 

Kiveton Park 1956.jpg

Ive used the same website to print off a very large map of Bawtry, which is shown in my layout planning thread here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111454-bawtry/?p=2330541

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

You may find this useful.  I stitched it together from several screen grabs of the 1956 1:2500 OS map from Old Maps UK.  This, and the National Library of Scotland maps collection are fantastic resources for those of us interested in prototypical track planning.  

 

Kiveton Park 1956.jpg

Many thanks indeed.

 

The main problems in making a roundy-roundy layout of the location are two-fold. One, there are no convenient overbridges to hide going on/off stage and two, one of the curves is going to have to be the reverse of what it is in reality. Should I abandon the project right now?

 

Trying not to be too much of a hypocrite, given fair weather and a following wind, I think I should be able to capture the salient features whilst accepting the inevitable compromises. Looking at the map, viewing from the south will probably be the best bet, with the canal in the foreground. That way, the front of the station building will be seen (though not the front of the 'box). The high ground to the north west of the location will make a decent backdrop, though I'm still pondering how to go on/offstage. Any ideas?  

[Tony Wright]

Tony, where might you put this new layout of yours?

 

Little Bytham may be nearing the final stages but will it ever be fully complete? I bet you'll always want to tinker with something on it, even if it does appear compete. I hope that when the time comes that I too will be able to enjoy a healthy and active retirement, little way to go just yet though....

 

On another, completely unrelated note, I have in the past been critical of some of our smaller suppliers within the hobby. However, I also feel it is important to highlight when one of these companies offers excellent customer service, and I am posting this here as I know it is well read and will gain good exposure. I don't wish to start a debate on suppliers, merely to highlight a great approach to business.

 

At the end of July, I placed an order with Fox Transfers. By about the 20th August the order had not arrived, and although the postage takes a little while longer to Hong Kong, it's not normally that slow. I sent an email to Fox explaining the problem. I received an almost instant reply offering to resend my order, recorded delivery, completely free of charge. No quibbling, no arguing, just straight up great service. Today I received my transfers. Needless to say I'm delighted, and as a result I'll recommend Fox to my friends, as I am doing here. Of course if the 'lost' set does show up then I'll return it to them, I don't need two sets. Their honest approach to business means that I'll be returning many more times in the future and is a great advert for our hobby. Thanks Fox!

Tom,

 

Since I look such a t*t in the TVR and find my ancient limbs less and less able to get in and out of the thing, it's probably time to pass it on to my sons. I'll thus have the garage to work in (which is larger than 'standard', new-home size). Though the whole layout might not be able to be fitted in in one piece, with the door open (and good weather), I can extend outside. 

 

That's the plan, anyway. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[bbishop]

Tony,

 

Industrial buildings on the right, move Red Hills Plantation to in front of the railway on the left.  You only have to fool the Mark 1 eyeball, don't worry about cameras.

 

In post #11170, you say you want to do virtually all the work.  Maybe you could modify that statement to "virtually all the work being done on site".  Many of your friends would want to turn up and give their time and expertise to you.  It's more fun that way - I'm about to drive 20 miles to scenick an exhibition layout; four hours of modelling and chatting.  On the horse trading front, the owner builds locomotives for me. 

 

Have you thought about transport? Will your planned layout fit into a short wheelbase transit and does a friend have access to one, leaving Mo and yourself to bring the stock?  Has David booked it for CMRA at Stevenage yet?

 

Bill

Edited August 26, 2016 by bbishop

[grob1234]

Tom,

 

Since I look such a t*t in the TVR and find my ancient limbs less and less able to get in and out of the thing, it's probably time to pass it on to my sons. I'll thus have the garage to work in (which is larger than 'standard', new-home size). Though the whole layout might not be able to be fitted in in one piece, with the door open (and good weather), I can extend outside. 

 

That's the plan, anyway. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Would be a definite shame to see the TVR depart your garage, it's a great car, and noisy, which I like. Maybe one more summer season might be in order for it

[Clearwater]

Tony

 

Will the new build stil be 50s set or will you be going for earlier?

 

David

[Tony Wright]

Interesting comments .

I still don't understand why some people seem to be  beat their selves up about using r.t.r Locos, Stock and anything else for sale . If the item exists and is good (as most current r.t.r is) why on earth not use use it?.

I see no logic it still spending double or more on a kit , then the time building, painting ,lining etc when a perfectly useable item is available. Buy the item you need and then build kits (if needed ) for anything else.

Thinking on the building of kits,  surely these perfectionists should be scratch building everything anyway?? How many of the kits are that accurate to the prototype when they are built?

I can remember a build of a A4 kit that would not go around any kind of curves when finished. Ok accurate to the extreme, but unless it sits in a Glass case what the point of building it ?

Everything in OO Model Railways is a compromise to the actual scale of track ,wheels widths, etc.

Ok ,the Hornby valve gear as an example is not perfect but for 95% of the owners I expect they understand a compromise has to be made on design and construction as the costs of that little bit of extra detail would be not be justified , the same applies to bogie wheels that are made to a price and to go around radius 2 curves on train sets , the same people wouldn't be bothered about some missing wire either.

Thickness of tender/cab sides in plastic is thinner than the battleship quality whitemetal sides of many kits. How many whitemetal kits even made in conduction with etched brass parts can compare with the quality of the plastic mouldings on r.t.r. Look as an example the quality of the Hornby LNER L1 ,compared with the old whitemetal kit of the same loco simply light years ahead.  Etched Brass is thinner but at a much higher cost and would not be viable for use in any volume  r.t.r product. How many owners of such r.t.r locos actually know about the very minor compromises or are actually bothered anyway? They get something that looks like the item they want and think no more about it.

R.t.r manufactures are there to serve the general consumer ,not specialist modellers , they do so by providing a reasonable product at a price at which they hope will sell. 

Mick,

 

I'm not sure if anyone is beating themselves up with regard to using (or not using) RTR items. However, if you don't know why folk prefer to make their own things, then, please, follow your path of exploiting what the RTR manufacturers provide, detailing, altering and improving it - which you do commendably well. It is your choice but it is not mine. It is also your right, and I have no wish to deny you that.

 

It seems pointless to try and justify my position, but may I make a few observations, please?

 

To imply (as you do in a later post) that no professional painter can match current RTR finishes is a bit of an insult if I may be so bold. Accepting that Ian Rathbone, and more lately, Geoff Haynes, have painted many of my locos (I've painted many as well, but nowhere near to the same standard), one of the reasons why I'm selling my self-modified RTR locos is because the lining isn't anywhere near in the same class, particularly the boiler bands on BR green. Yes, with weathering it can be made more realistic, but the way over-scale boiler band lining still 'shouts out', rather like a backward wasp. It's also the same with LNER lining, where the likes of Larry Goddard and Ian Rathbone get a much finer result than that obtainable with a proprietary finish or transfer lining, however well-applied. I've photographed examples, and the difference shows.  

 

As for RTR plastic models being superior to a conjunction of white metal and etched brass components, may I cite a DJH A1 in comparison with a Bachmann one? Are you telling me that a loco with etched brass cabsides, etched brass deflectors and an etched brass tender body looks 'inferior' to one with all those bits made (out of necessity) in thicker plastic? If so, I beg to differ. 

 

I have great admiration for those who personally improve their RTR items (as you do, and as have many others on this thread) but, in my view, particularly with many mainstream RTR layouts at shows and in the press there is a level of 'sameness' appearing, even down to the extent of two identical locos being on the same layout; the reason was that two different club members had bought the same item and wished to run them (democracy rules). Neither had been altered at all. Is this an illustration of the way the hobby is going? If so, count me out.

 

In fairness, it would be tantamount to lunacy on my part to have made all the Mk.1s I need on LB. Instead, I've made the appropriate types Bachmann doesn't do, mostly BSOs. Every Bachmann (or Hornby) one has been modified by the removal of the roof ribs, new couplings fitted and weathering added, but they're really just modified RTR. And, they suit and look the part. 

 

Finally, and this has been alluded to by many, I enjoy making my own locos and rolling stock, much more than I enjoy modifying RTR. This, I agree, is a personal point of view, and I'm not suggesting it is a better way to do things than the alternatives. All I'd say is that any loco (or carriage) I make is (ex-painting in some cases) entirely down (or up) to me. How it performs is down to me, how it's put together is down to me, how it's finished (apart from painting in several cases) is down to me and I'm not restricted by the compromises necessary in any RTR loco (though mine have different compromises). I'm also not restricted by what the RTR chaps provide (though I no longer scratch-build) and, I believe, any models which have been made are much more personal creations. 'My' way is certainly not better, superior, elitist nor cost-effective. It's just that I enjoy it more. As you do, your way.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Headstock]

On checking the one B1 Nucast tender I own (actually being towed by an A2/1) the sides are 1.42mm thick compared to a New Hornby B1 Tender at 1.24mm.

 

Then you look at the detail and quality  on both versions. Nucast basically a lump of whitemetal ,very little and what is there is present is in very clumsy detail, and very heavy for something just being towed . Hornby B1 simply superb, fine side raves, fire iron tunnel , riveting and  actual detail to base of water filler and Toolboxes and that is just the top of the Tender.

 

I have  Black and Apple Green versions of the B1, the lining is far beyond anything a professional painter could ever hope to achieve . 

 

As to the Full Brake what is actually wrong with the Hornby version ?. They have sorted out the Tumblehome shape and the Beading positions on this later moulding. I have seen comments relating to the Comet side etches being too thin and easily buckled ?.

 

I happily build kits and modify r.t.r e.g Hornby A4 to W1 , A3 to A1/1, Bachmann A2 to A2/2 A2/3 versions using Resin and etched parts . I agree re kits being a enjoyable build with occasional problems and challenges , that is when they nearly get chuck of the nearest window !! It hasn't happened yet lol.

 

However if its available in r.t.r why bother building the same item, unless the item is a total dog of which a few sadly still exist from the 1990's such as the recent new chassis on 20 year old A4 ,V1, V2  and Ivatt bodied  efforts by Bachmann.  The problem then is there a kit of some of those even available nowadays? McGowan did a whitemetal "kit" of the V1 years ago which was also dire in the extreme. No idea re the Ivatt as not my area of modelling.

 

I had a SE Finecast A4 again compared to the Hornby version simply no comparison in quality and shape. The Tender was simply awful detail and weighed a ton . It went via ebay to a new home as did a K's P2 Earl Marischal which was simply appalling. Imagine trying to get that to move with supplied K's overheating motor !!

 

 

The main thing is enjoy what you are doing !!

 

Hi Mick,

 

sounds like you got a bum rap on your Nucast tender. I'm not saying that the Hornby tender isn't better it clearly is, just pointing out that in forty years it's not a massive improvement in thickness. At over three inches it's not that far off armour plate if you're a Battlecruiser anyway lol. I recommend the Bradwell kit it will keep you entertained for ages and with enough spare sides and, or coping plates to doll up a small army of RTR tenders.

 

Recently I did up a Bachmann RTR Atlantic for a friend, new numbers, coal etc. It also got a new saddle and front frames, that supplied by the manufacturer being pretty hopeless. I've presently received one of the green B1's. This time, my friend has done all the work himself including drawing up and having his own transfers produced. The loco is now E1299, I'm rather proud of his achievement.

 

Regarding the Hornby full brake, it's basically too fat. They haven't sorted out the tumblehome, just given it a rather bulbous sticky out one to accommodate the same over wide floor pan of the gangway passenger carriages. The real things were rather slim being the same proportions as the recessed brake compartment on passenger stock. The underframe has the same problems as the other gangway stock and it rides on the wrong bogies, being the 8' 6" light type rather than the 8' heavies.

 

I've greatly enjoyed seeing your superb conversions, lining and paint jobs. I just can't get excited about line up's of RTR locomotives in the same way. It would be a sad day if you were to stop producing them just because a RTR equivalent became available.

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

Will the new build stil be 50s set or will you be going for earlier?

 

David

David,

 

It could be earlier, for personal reasons. 

 

My grandfather used to live next door to a Mr. Beecroft, who used to be one of the signalmen at Kiveton Park. My grandfather, an ex-miner, had taken early retirement because of respiratory problems caused by his being a miner. Thus, his retirement gave him the opportunity to spend time with two of his further-away grandchildren, in this case my brother and me. He used to take us to Kiveton Park (a walk of a mile or so) and chat to the signalman. My brother, being younger, was in a pushchair and I, being older, had to walk. The time would be about 1950/'51, just as I started school, and we would sit on the 'box steps drinking Tizer and eating crisps, whist granddad chatted away. I have vivid memories of gleaming apple green engines, which must have been B1s, branded 'British Railways'. Occasionally, we'd be joined by my uncle who taught us tiddler fishing in the nearby Chesterfield Canal. The best place to catch minnows and sticklebacks (not contaminated by the nearby Kiveton Park Steel & Wire Works) was towards Shireoaks, and this site was immediately alongside the railway. An occupation crossing adjacent to the cut, leading off towards Moses' Seat and across the fields, gave the best of both worlds - tiddlers on one side and trains on the other. On one occasion, a gleaming, freshly-shopped B17 in new BR green fizzed by. 'Clumber, that's just up t'road' stated my uncle in his broadest Yorkshire accent.

 

But those are childhood memories, not reliable enough to use as primary sources in model-making. Kiveton Park will thus be set in about 1958/'59, when I first took pictures there. I'll stretch the time period by running Brits and, possibly, the early prototype diesel one-offs, all of which ran through. That way, I won't have to build any locos and rolling stock for it.  

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Industrial buildings on the right, move Red Hills Plantation to in front of the railway on the left.  You only have to fool the Mark 1 eyeball, don't worry about cameras.

 

In post #11170, you say you want to do virtually all the work.  Maybe you could modify that statement to "virtually all the work being done on site".  Many of your friends would want to turn up and give their time and expertise to you.  It's more fun that way - I'm about to drive 20 miles to scenick an exhibition layout; four hours of modelling and chatting.  On the horse trading front, the owner builds locomotives for me. 

 

Have you thought about transport? Will your planned layout fit into a short wheelbase transit and does a friend have access to one, leaving Mo and yourself to bring the stock?  Has David booked it for CMRA at Stevenage yet?

 

Bill

Thanks Bill,

 

What a good idea about shifting things. 

 

You're quite right about friends wishing to contribute to a new project; several have already said they'll do things for it. I am, as I've said many times, immensely privileged in that regard. 

 

Your point about transportation is well-made. I'm 70 in October, so I've just renewed my driver's licence. From October, I won't be able to hire a van over a certain size (or any van?), so the layout will have to be accommodated in estate cars (we have one already). The TVR is definitely out (though with the roof off, the sky's the limit with regard to carrying bits of wood), but that'll be going to our sons, anyway.

 

I'll cross the transportation bridge when I come to it.