Wright writes.....

[polybear]

Purely out of interest, what were (are) the issues with K's Wheels?  Were they the ones with D-shaped axle ends?

Brian

[Michael Edge]

The D shaped axle end worked fairly well in principle but was prone to damaging when the wheels were fitted since the plastic is fairly soft. They were reasonably good for concentricity though. The wheel profile isn't very good by modern standards, the flanges are a bit too thick but having said that I still have quite a few locos running on them, two or three on Wentworth Junction recently.

If you compare them to what else was available at the time (about 50 years ago), they were very good. The first with steel tyres which gave better adhesion.

There were (and still are) many complaints about rust on the tyres but it's easily cleaned off, Slater's 7mm wheels still come in for the same complaint.

[Barry O]

My NuCast Q6 ( my first ever complete loco kit I built) still runs well on its Ks wheels. The MW005 motor, while powerful is very "power hungry".  It can out pull my Hornby Q6 quite easily but isn't quite a Q6.

 

Baz

Edited November 3, 2022 by Barry O

[micklner]

21 minutes ago, Barry O said:

My NuCast Q6 ( my first ever complete loco kit I built) still runs well on its Ks wheels. The MW005 motor, while powerful is very "power hungry".  It can output my Hornby Q6 quite easily but isn't quite a Q6.

 

Baz

As does my LNER Y8 on a new chassis. I reused them simply because no one else did the correct size when I rebuilt her. You have be very careful with them as very easy to destroy the D shape, otherwise they are fine.

[Barclay]

I have to say that I rather enjoy getting hold of an old kit and seeing what I can do with it, even if it's not perfect. The K's coal tank I'm building at the moment is a case in point. I could buy an etched kit (I think?) but I get more satisfaction from the problem solving required to do something reasonably good with the old kit, even though one tank is shorter than the other! I have done similar with other older kits, and they always seem to be an entertaining build. I have built very good etched kits, and done some scratchbuilds too but the thing is, if you're going to apply the top standards of a good etched kit to one of these older models then you're going to end up replacing everything - much better to enjoy it for what it is, upgrade where it's important but leave the rest.

 

Below are two similar loco's - my scratchbuilt Manning Wardle 'F' and a Hudswell Clarke and Rodgers built from a secondhand K's kit with a better chassis etc. I like to think the Manning is a much better model and could indeed have scratchbuilt a Hudswell to the same standard but doing something half-decent with the K's kit was a challenge that had to be taken up.

 

 

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Barclay said:

I have to say that I rather enjoy getting hold of an old kit and seeing what I can do with it, even if it's not perfect. The K's coal tank I'm building at the moment is a case in point. I could buy an etched kit (I think?) but I get more satisfaction from the problem solving required to do something reasonably good with the old kit, even though one tank is shorter than the other! I have done similar with other older kits, and they always seem to be an entertaining build. I have built very good etched kits, and done some scratchbuilds too but the thing is, if you're going to apply the top standards of a good etched kit to one of these older models then you're going to end up replacing everything - much better to enjoy it for what it is, upgrade where it's important but leave the rest.

 

Below are two similar loco's - my scratchbuilt Manning Wardle 'F' and a Hudswell Clarke and Rodgers built from a secondhand K's kit with a better chassis etc. I like to think the Manning is a much better model and could indeed have scratchbuilt a Hudswell to the same standard but doing something half-decent with the K's kit was a challenge that had to be taken up.

 

 

 

I like that approach very much. It takes much more time to carry out the necessary modifications but in terms of the actual costs, it is still a budget model but the end results can be very satisfying.

 

I have a Millholme GCR 0-8-0 that I "did a job" on which ran on Tickhill and Wadworth. It even made the front cover of MRJ (No 193). I was asked more than once if I had scratchbuilt it and people were very surprised to hear that it was the Millholme kit.

 

There are a couple of old GEM kits on Narrow Road that have had the treatment too.

 

My aim is to build something that looks as it is supposed to look, rather than something that gives away its origin because faults that could have been fixed remain obvious.

 

Taking the Ks J3 as an example, I would have lowered the splashers and altered the shape of the cab. The metal is thick enough to take plenty of filing. The radius of the curves on the corners is much too big. I would have altered the cab front so the spectacles were in the right place and I would have thinned off the visible edges of the footsteps and other places that look like armour plate rather than sheet metal.

 

I would also have tried to wrestle the smokebox into a more round shape, so that there was an evenly sized ring visible around the smokebox door.

 

If it was a mm. or two out in a main dimension, that would bother me less if it wasn't obvious without measuring.

 

None of these alterations would add to the cost, apart from maybe a bit of scrap brass for a new cab front.

 

They would result in a model that doesn't shout "K's" at you, rather like your very lovely creation.

[Camperdown]

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Around 15 years ago, I wrote an article that was about 7,000 words long and which was published over two issues with no editing that I noticed. A couple of years ago I was told "2,000 words but preferably fewer than that" as the text got in the way of the photos.

 

I really struggled to tell the story that I wanted to tell in 2,000 words and I didn't enjoy writing that one very much at all.

 

The reason, I was told, is that the "modern" reader doesn't have the attention span to read a lot of words.    

It's a matter of taste.  Very few people can write an entertaining story over 5000 words or so --- Iain Rice was one, but the fact that we all remember how good he was, shows that  the skill is quite rate.  Too many articles in the model press are of the "I cut a 20mm piece of plastikard, then I cut a 10mm piece" variety.  Photos with good captions, or better yet, good, annotated photos can generally tell a story better.  We should also remember that forums like this now supplement what only used to be in your monthly paper magazine.  That's probably the significance of the comment on modern readers.

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Camperdown said:

It's a matter of taste.  Very few people can write an entertaining story over 5000 words or so --- Iain Rice was one, but the fact that we all remember how good he was, shows that  the skill is quite rate.  Too many articles in the model press are of the "I cut a 20mm piece of plastikard, then I cut a 10mm piece" variety.  Photos with good captions, or better yet, good, annotated photos can generally tell a story better.  We should also remember that forums like this now supplement what only used to be in your monthly paper magazine.  That's probably the significance of the comment on modern readers.

 

You are quite right but we seem to be saying that somebody like Ian Rice wouldn't be getting his "stories" published nowadays, which would seem such a shame.

 

I don't think I am alone in preferring a good read rather than long captions on photos but I am happy to accept that I may be in a minority.

 

Rather like exhibitions, I can't help but think that we have too many magazines and that there is not enough good quality material to fill them all.

 

Thank goodness for MRJ. I still go back over old issues and read them again. There is still room for a good written story in their pages.

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Back to loco building, and the inspiration and guidance TW has provided some of us through his writings:

 

 

I've made a start on a Comet chassis to go under this elderly Hornby Duchess. 

 

Basic frames were assembled last night using the Comet jigs and reference to the graphed lines on a cutting board as a rough visual aid to make sure all was square. 

 

The body of the Duchess dates from 1979 and was my first attempt at "bodging" an RTR loco to make it a bit more realistic/different. I cut away the front framing to make it the utility type and renamed/numbered it as City of Manchester. At the age of 15, I didn't have access to nameplates so I made a new pair of names for it using paper and my dad's Rotring pen. The etched plates on it now are much more recent, as are the smoke deflectors and the overly-bright red paint job. I also added plastic card to the rear to make a better go at the frame extensions.

 

Currently, I'm reworking the lower boiler sides to remove the moulded skirt and add a continuation of the boiler, using plastic card fillets. The body will get a total repaint and lining job in due course, but still red and still City of Manchester. for old time's sake.

 

 

I think it would be fair to say that the build will be very much in the TW spirit, with rigid frames, Tony's style of pickups, even a DJH motor/gearbox.  I don't follow TW's methods in all respects - I lack a pillar drill, for instance, so I open out the bearing holes using a dodgy-looking reamer - but I know from experience that it's fine for what's needed.

 

Al

Edited November 3, 2022 by Barry Ten
typo

[grahame]

14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The reason, I was told, is that the "modern" reader doesn't have the attention span to read a lot of words.    

 

They might well claim that, but I often wonder if it is a chicken and egg situation. Many times a magazine provides plenty of eye candy in the form of pictures with just a few short sound-bites (read-bites?) when I'd really like better balance and to read about things as well as look at them. There doesn't seem to be a choice. Sometimes it feels like it is foisted on us.

 

 

 

[polybear]

56 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

I don't follow TW's methods in all respects - I lack a pillar drill, for instance, so I open out the bearing holes using a dodgy-looking reamer - but I know from experience that it's fine for what's needed.

 

Al

 

Reamers are absolutely fine.....

[john new]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

They might well claim that, but I often wonder if it is a chicken and egg situation. Many times a magazine provides plenty of eye candy in the form of pictures with just a few short sound-bites (read-bites?) when I'd really like better balance and to read about things as well as look at them. There doesn't seem to be a choice. Sometimes it feels like it is foisted on us.

 

 

 

It also p****s me off these days when layout plans are marked as not to scale. Part of the interest from a layout article in the past was seeing how the modeller had used the space both laterally (the track plan) and vertically by showing images cropped to where just the tops of the backscene are visible. Over stretched, photoshopped in sky, does not help get a true feel for the layout. I also spotted in one recent BRM layout review the track plan had  a straight length of track where quite clearly in both the still images and the accompanying video that bit of track was an S curve. What is the purpose therefore of the article, once it ceases to be a this is what I have researched/planned and then made, this is how I did it and these are the pitfalls overcome? Even if that is just I bought a baseboard kit, bought r-t-r/r-t-p and used one of XYZ's scenic backdrops it is, or should be, helpful information.

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by john new
Grammar correction

[gr.king]

2 hours ago, john new said:

It also p****s me off these days when layout plans are marked as not to scale. Part of the interest from a layout article in the past was seeing how the modeller had used the space both laterally (the track plan) and vertically by showing images cropped to where just the tops of the backscene are visible. Over stretched, photoshopped in sky, does not help get a true feel for the layout. I also spotted in one recent BRM layout review the track plan had  a straight length of track where quite clearly in both the still images and the accompanying video that bit of track was an S curve. What is the purpose therefore of the article, once it ceases to be a this is what I have researched/planned and then made, this is how I did it and these are the pitfalls overcome? Even if that is just I bought a baseboard kit, bought r-t-r/r-t-p and used one of XYZ's scenic backdrops it is, or should be, helpful information.

 

I avoid such frustrations as I hardly ever buy any of the magazines now. I'm simply not interested in viewing / reading material that has been prepared by, and for, the defective products of parenting styles and education that have in recent decades typically been deficient in insistence upon paying attention, and lacking in emphasis on the fundamental importance of literacy and the correct use of proper English...

[Northmoor]

7 hours ago, grahame said:

 

They might well claim that, but I often wonder if it is a chicken and egg situation. Many times a magazine provides plenty of eye candy in the form of pictures with just a few short sound-bites (read-bites?) when I'd really like better balance and to read about things as well as look at them. There doesn't seem to be a choice. Sometimes it feels like it is foisted on us.

In the defence of the publishers, as @Camperdownsays above, most modellers can't write a readable 5000 word article.  Even if they try, turning an unreadable 5000 words into a readable 1500 probably takes considerably longer than selecting and tweaking 12 photographs.  I've also said before on this thread that magazine photos are too often grossly over-enlarged, so they actually highlight faults with models instead of showcasing the workmanship.

I do buy modelling mags a few times a year, but won't have a subscription for the reasons above.

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, polybear said:

Purely out of interest, what were (are) the issues with K's Wheels?  Were they the ones with D-shaped axle ends?

Brian

Good even Brian,

 

Though I know others have made K's wheels and motors/gear work well, I've never had any success with them; from the earliest 'keyhole' chassis (where the drivers were quartered on the axles and dropped into inverted 'U'-shaped bearings, finally held in place with a keeper plate) to the 'D'-shaped axle holes in the drivers. None has ever been true round or concentric in my experience, and the 'D's can shift on their axles.

 

As for the K's motors.............

 

I cannot get on with any driving wheels apart from Romford/Markits ones.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Regarding articles in the mainstream magazines, I think the biggest change over the decades has been digital photography. When I started writing 'how to' articles, if illustrated in colour, I had to wait for the lab to process the results before proceeding. Not only that, on the medium-/large-format stock I was using it was an expense every time I fired the shutter, especially because (with transparencies) bracketing had to be employed.

 

The results were text-heavy articles, with just a few pictures. Digital photography has reversed that, so  most articles are picture-heavy (a picture is worth a thousand words?). Whether this is also because the attention span of 'modern' readers is less than it was for their predecessors, I'm not sure. 

 

In my case, I've just gone with the flow........

[AY Mod]

6 hours ago, john new said:

I also spotted in one recent BRM layout review the track plan had  a straight length of track where quite clearly in both the still images and the accompanying video that bit of track was an S curve.

 

Which layout was this please John? I'd like to go back and look at it again.

[Coach bogie]

I bought this when I was a teenager. ( I have just retired) I was told the K's wheels were worn in the bushes and the K's motor will fail soon. I added all the brake gear etc. I bought a set of Romfords ready to fit when it finally gave up. It is still running over 45 years later. I had rtr that did not last a fraction of that time. I appreciate it is a love/hate relationship with K's but I learnt to build locos and coaches due to K's. They are what they are, and I would not have a GWR loco fleet if it were not for K's, and as for the pulling power due to all that weight, I would not be without them.

 

 

The recent K's build have all had Romfords, some have a High Level gear box/motor as the original kit came with the HP2M motor which was not going to be used. How K's expected this tiny motor to power a Garratt is beyond me. though for small engines, that do not have to pull much, they work fine with Romford Gears rather than the awful plastic gear supplied.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

[john new]

35 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Which layout was this please John? I'd like to go back and look at it again.

Will probably be later in the week before I get a chance to do the cross check but will let you know.

[westernviscount]

Here is a little project I have been working on. A parkside insulated van with some etched brake gear. Not something I have done much of, but i certainly enjoyed it. 

 

I am lucky enough to now own an airbrush which I have started to play about with. Still getting the hang of it. 

 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

In the defence of the publishers, as @Camperdownsays above, most modellers can't write a readable 5000 word article.  

 

Probably rather harsh to say most modellers can't write readable text. They obviously could when magazines were more text heavy. And turning less readable pieces into a more readable article is a skill editors ought to have and be able to undertake.

 

 

[Willie Whizz]

I too buy many fewer magazines than I used to, but at least one most months. 
 

A major problem I find is that typically the ‘layout’ photos are too big (resulting in too little text informative text), but the ‘how to do it’ photos are too typically small (so you can’t always clearly see what the accompanying text is trying to describe). 
 

I do like there to be one “overall” view of the layout, which does often feature these days. I don’t miss the endless lists in old-time magazines of “these are the loco kits I built but you probably don’t have the skills to”. 

[Northmoor]

20 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Probably rather harsh to say most modellers can't write readable text. They obviously could when magazines were more text heavy. And turning less readable pieces into a more readable article is a skill editors ought to have and be able to undertake.

 

 

I didn't say they (we) couldn't write at all.  I said we couldn't write a readable 5000-word article, which the vast majority of us couldn't without a lot of practice.  You are right that editors should have the skill and most probably do, but may feel their time is spent more cost-effectively on editing photos and getting on the phone to manufacturers, asking when their next loco is coming for review.

[Steamport Southport]

11 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

I too buy many fewer magazines than I used to, but at least one most months. 
 

A major problem I find is that typically the ‘layout’ photos are too big (resulting in too little text informative text), but the ‘how to do it’ photos are too typically small (so you can’t always clearly see what the accompanying text is trying to describe). 
 

I do like there to be one “overall” view of the layout, which does often feature these days. I don’t miss the endless lists in old-time magazines of “these are the loco kits I built but you probably don’t have the skills to”. 

 

That is what I do miss.

 

Who really gives a monkey's about a RTR Class 37 straight out of the box? I can buy one of those myself and plonk it on the track.

 

But that L&YR Highflyer or GNR C2 4-4-2 lurking in the background without even a mention is of interest. Details please.

 

 

 

Jason

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I didn't say they (we) couldn't write at all.  I said we couldn't write a readable 5000-word article, which the vast majority of us couldn't without a lot of practice.  You are right that editors should have the skill and most probably do, but may feel their time is spent more cost-effectively on editing photos and getting on the phone to manufacturers, asking when their next loco is coming for review.

One of my jobs is to proof-read and sub BRM each month (if any glaring bloopers are present, you can blame me). 

 

It is a sub-editor's job (and, to some extent, an editor's job) to 'sort out' the English in any submissions. 

 

I don't buy into the notion that standards of written English have declined in more recent years. In fact, one might (with cynicism) state that standards have never been high in general. I've had pieces presented which have been written by blokes of my generation which are dismal (a clipped ear would have been administrated years back were such mangled examples of our native language presented to 'sir'). However, it doesn't really matter, because what appears in the magazine should have nothing of the 'ignorant' writing present (I use 'ignorant' in the true sense of the word). What it should be is the author's story, told by him/her, but with the grammar/punctuation/spelling corrected. 

 

Of course one is always 'riding for a fall'. That's why any bloopers I'm responsible for should be highlighted immediately. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.