Wagon Wish List

[Highpeak]

[This is the initial post that led to the creation of this Topic. Please see an Admin post further down the topic for an explanation of its purpose]

It's a sad state of affairs really when such top-notch products are not selling like proverbial hot cakes.

Everybody pursues the hobby in their own way, and I can fully understand somebody building a layout that requires a lot of rolling stock not wanting to spend the time building the kind of wagon that we are looking at here. I am not sure I fully subscribe to the uniformity doctrine. I can't see why some wagons might be finished to a higher standard than others and do not believe doing so would ruin the scene. Maybe there needs to be a limit to what you would consider acceptable but there should also be room for a spectrum where at one end you have a fully detailed wagon and at the other one that closer inspection would show was not at the same level, but still a believable model.

From Justin's perspective, it is completely understandable not to want to bring products to market for which there is insufficient demand to turn any kind of profit. No business, be it a one-man band or a large company, can sustain that.

From the perspective of those of us who derive such pleasure from building this type of kit, we can ill afford to lose the talents of people like Justin. What impresses me the most is his growing ability to use different techniques where they make the most sense. I presume we've all seen the etched kits where we are asked to perform advanced origami on something that should have been cast, or perhaps these days, printed. Justin is combining different media and creating kits that are interesting to build and give excellent results. That to me is something we need more of in the hobby.

The man said, commissions are the way he can continue to do this. Perhaps what is needed is for those of us who believe wagons deserve similar treatment to locomotives to explore a wish list, not as a source of froth but as a path to joining forces to commission work. I realise that similar schemes have resulted in financial disasters (and I don't think I need to name names) but the difference here is that we would be funding the person originating the work, not a middleman who perhaps is simply an overhead cost.

I welcome constructive criticism of this idea, perhaps we need a separate thread so as not to distract from Justin's display of his work.

[Martin Kelly]

Neville, I've been meaning to respond to you previous post for a while...

Like many members here, I'm a huge fan of Justin's work. In fact, it was discovering the quality of his output that was a big factor in my return to finescale modelling and girding my loins to finally master the dark art of soldering PE kits. So, I'm with you; it would be a terrible shame if Justin couldn't find a way for his business to remain viable. And I like your idea about pooling our ideas to come up with some viable commission ideas. In other areas of life where I have an interest, I've seen such projects funded using crowdfunding systems like KickStarter as a way to reduce the financial risk for all parties.

I also agree that a separate thread for this that does not contaminate Justin's own workbench postings would be a good idea. If any of the Forum admins are reading, perhaps they could suggest an appropriate home for such a thread?

[garethevans1986]

Same here, I have suggestions for 4 wagons, 1 I have already spoken to Justin about.
Ive requested that the topic is split.

[Paul Willis]

This is a topic that has been created at the request of a number of members.

In light of the challenges facing small suppliers and the need to identify what might be viable products to develop, it is intended to be a place for discussion of potential new models. It will hopefully serve as a clearing house for both information and intentions to purchase.

It is hoped that it continues in the constructivestyle of the rest of the Forum, and doesn't degenerate into a list of "I want an MSWJR two plank wagon in the pale blue livery from October 1919 to March 2020. But I only want one."... I'm confident that it won't, and it will be a useful space to identify what models are unavailable, and what could get them into production.

Best wishes,
Paul Willis
Forum Admin

[Jol Wilkinson]

I am wary of "wish lists".

People posting on them should reflect on how easy it will be for the producer/manufacturer to create their desired products. It is little surprise (or shouldn't be) that the RTR manufacturers have concentrated on preserved items or at least those that are very well documented and recorded.

Given that caveat however. wish lists do provide some guidance as to what may be the most commercially successful products to manufacture. I say some, because even the annual wish list fest on RMweb (aimed solely at RTR products) has a huge list of models to vote for, but I don't recall the results giving any indication of the number of votes for each model, just the order of preference.

[Paul Willis]

I am wary of "wish lists".

People posting on them should reflect on how easy it will be for the producer/manufacturer to create their desired products. It is little surprise (or shouldn't be) that the RTR manufacturers have concentrated on preserved items or at least those that are very well documented and recorded.

Given that caveat however. wish lists do provide some guidance as to what may be the most commercially successful products to manufacture. I say some, because even the annual wish list fest on RMweb (aimed solely at RTR products) has a huge list of models to vote for, but I don't recall the results giving any indication of the number of votes for each model, just the order of preference.

Hence my introductory post above

I very much hope that Society members are not going to indulge in RMWeb style "froth", but have an informed debate, as we usually do...

Best,
Paul

[Highpeak]

The point of the discussion is not to come up with a simple wish list, which unfortunately is what the thread title suggests, but to try to determine if there are any wagon types that people are interested in and to pool resources to commission Justin to produce them. I might be sitting here wishing that there was a model of a Great Northern and Southern blancmange tanker but not having the wherewithal to commission such a fine addition to the range of kits, but if there were two or three like-minded people we could pool our resources and get what we want.

I completely agree that we don;t need a simple list of any wagons that don't happen to have a model available.

[Martin Kelly]

Taking all the above cautionary comments about "wish list" frothing as a given, we have to start somewhere. I think it would probably be helpful to bear in mind Justin's own areas of interest and the fact that whatever ideas we have need to be worth his time and investment.

Generally, Justin has a history of going for wagons that were in service on British Railways in the 1960s and 1970s and he has tended to specialise in finescale underframes and enhancements for existing kits or RTR bodies. Recently he has done a few complete wagon kits but I suspect these have derived either from his own personal needs or commissions. He also considerately steers clear of areas already covered by others - for example Dave Bradwell's BR 20t brake van underframe kit.

I'll limit myself to suggesting one potential area: Justin has, over the last couple of years, taken an interest in tank wagons and has mainly focused on ones based on RCH underframes. He started out, I think, by exploring an underframe for Bachmann RTR bodies. So maybe one candidate might be something like the TTA tank wagons? There are existing Bachmann models that could benefit from a superdetailing-plus-underframe kit and I think Hornby plans to introduce newly tooled TTAs in 2023 which might be amenable to a similar approach. Is that a candidate that enough of us might be interested in?

[Terry Bendall]

So maybe one candidate might be something like the TTA tank wagons?

The Stenson models range now sold under the Will's Workbanch lable does some detailing parts for the TTA but no underframe yet. https://www.willsworkbench.com/ranges/stensonmodels

Terry Bendall

[Highpeak]

I have been discussing the commission of an LMS roadstone wagon with Justin and have received his permission to present this as a project. The wagon in question is http://www.manlocosoc.co.uk/chulme/ch-021/ch021-27.jpg
These wagons were fairly common in the Peak District and I believe some were lettered for return to Hillhead Quarry. There was a proposed kit from Cambrian and I believe there may have been an etched kit from Jidenco. There is a 7mm scale kit from D J Parkin. The wagon is featured in one of the late Bob Essery's LMS wagon diagram books with full plans and some photographs.

While the wagons were common in the Peak District where the traffic originated they could of course go anywhere that the stone was required. According to one of the Foxline books dealing with the Peak District one traffic flow was to East Anglia where the customer was the sugar beet industry.

I contacted Justin to discuss the possibility of producing this kit as a commission. My reasoning was that:
- it's a fairly complex wagon that would take a lot of time to scratch built
- the wagons were gregarious, a rake of three to six would really be needed to look correct
- Justin has an excellent track record in the production of wagons where the underframe was not concealed by the bodywork
- Justin also is skilled at producing hybrid kits using different media as appropriate. The skips for this wagon would not really be best produced as an etched component but would be much better as a 3D print, the underframe would work well as an etching.

The final reason of course was Because I Want One (or 6).

The seed for this was sown by the pictures of the Izal Palvan in Justin's thread. The ensuing discussion that highlighted the difficulties Justin faces in his business suggested that commissions were the future, perhaps funded by a small group. Cohesion of the group is key, especially in terms of the specification for the wagon so that the design process doesn't get bogged down in endless discussions. In my case it was simple: I know nothing about the design and production process and am happy to defer to Justin's expertise on the matter.

So it's not really a wish list, it really is intended as a way to get the more specialised prototypes into production, and of course it does involve being able to fund the project as opposed to wishing and hoping.

[nberrington]

My two cents worth - with Eileen's Emporium departing the scene, all those lovely Bill Bedford underframes and W irons are gone.
It might be worth exploring the idea of filling in the gaps in the market!

I know I am definitely down for at least one of those lovely SECR N class chassis Justin produces (once the postal disruption to Canada ends,

[whitleypump]

To follow a similar line to Martin Kelly, the expansion of some of the upgrade sets to full kits may be of interest to many. For example, the very nice chassis & detailing sets for milk tanks have caught my eye but as someone new to railway modelling, the David Geen whitemetal kits these are designed to complement are now unobtainable at a sensible price. And yes, there's always scratchbuilding for the missing elements (presumably the Hornby RTR offering could also be butchered for donor parts) but having a complete kit with all elements to the same excellent standard would be appealing.

Simon

[nberrington]

Justin does a LNER diamond frame freight bogie that really caught my attention. It looks a whole lot like the LSWR version!

I have quite a few LSWR/SR ballast hoppers in the kit pile - Cambrian and Southwark Bridge.( now Roxey) Modifying the LNER bogie design would be just a wee tweaking hopefully .....)

I’m sure there a few of these kits kicking around among Southern fans in P4 and EM.

I would be up for several of them. The Cambrian bogies in particular have me nervous.....

[jjnewitt]

Nice to have some Rumney Models discussion on the forum. I generally find a wall of silence online when it comes to my stuff. I would have posted something here sooner but I've had my head down with some new releases, updating websites and creating price lists and forum related posts, it takes ages!

Rumney Models celebrates (!) it's 10th birthday this year and for most of those it has undertaken commission work to produce a wide variety of things; hand built models, 2D artwork for etching, 3D artwork for 3D printing and kit creation. Wagons do tend to dominate things but it is by no means the only area that gets touched. Recent commission work has included a chassis kit for the Bachmann N class and outline drawings, 3D prints and etched parts for a LSWR type 4 signal box. Coming up very soon will be some DMU bogie sideframes and TPO traductors. Given sufficient information I'll draw up anything railway related. Touching on Jols post earlier, I'll do things for which there is very little information, it's just harder and more importantly takes longer, so is more expensive. My own modelling interests have ended up being set in the spring of 1964 so most of Rumney Models non-commissioned output will be around at that point. That doesn't limit what I can do, just what I'm likely to do off my own back.

Increasingly commissioned projects will point the way forward with new stuff. The amount of things that I do off my own back that make it out into the wide world will decrease as there is less stuff I want in any real number or what I'm doing is more niche and so is unlikley to sell in any enough quantity to make releasing it worth while. All of my non-commissioned kits are created outside of work time along with doing the test builds which are done in my evenings. Rumney Models doesn't pay me for any of that but it needs to pay me for the work involved in releasing what I've created. There's lots of things I could do, pretty much any standard tank wagon up to the air brake era, but will they sell? The Air Ministry is not suggesting they will.

On a wider note, how many people are there out there that actually want to make stuff anymore? The loss of Eillen's is really worrying from my point of view as is the continued rise of as little work as possible RTR within the society. Far from giving people the time to do more interesting and involved things it just seems people more opportunity to do nothing. It will also never adequately cover the vast variety of wagon and coach types that could be seen in the steam and early diesel era. A glance at the annual RMweb wish list will point you to the tip of that iceberg. It was the sheer variety of wagons that were around in my period of interest and the array of details on those wagons that inspried me to start Rumney Models in the first place. If you want a model railway that does actually look like the real thing beyond the loco at the front of the train, you're going to need to build kits and when you're finished doing that you're going to have to start modfying them or creating stuff from scratch. If you want support from the trade to do that then you need to support suppliers or you'll find you need to do more by yourself as they fall by the wayside. The hobby has got used to ranges being endlessly available through being passed along to someone else. Given where the hobby is going is that going to continue?

I'm very open to groups of people getting together to either finanace or commit to buy sufficient of something to to make it happen, just as I am with individuals. The only potential difficulty I see is keeping everyone happy. There are basically two sorts of commissions that I really like, those where the customer goes into minute detail as to what they want (which they then get) or leave me to come up with something. It's when things are in between those that it can get tricky and that might be more likely with a group of people. Always happy to try though.

Sorry that was a bit longer than intended! Time for lunch then back to work...

Justin

[PeteT]

One set of projects I've discussed with Justin are ammonia & methanol tankers - the latter Hornby do a reasonable superstructure to potentially start from.

From the David Hey Collection, and Embsay & Bolton Abbey railway websites for these examples:

https://davidheyscollection-static.mysh ... 2eff5f.jpg

https://www.embsayboltonabbeyrailway.or ... drmt16.jpg

https://davidheyscollection-static.mysh ... 900a15.jpg

https://davidheyscollection-static.mysh ... ded620.jpg

Part of Justin's problem is of course his age - there are plenty of suppliers who, without wishing to be too blunt, won't be around forever and therefore we are probably too busy getting some bits 'while we can' rather than making sure those with (touch wood!) several decades still to go do have a viable business to continue with for that time.

Aside from the question of time, there is the balance of what we all want, or 'need', to achieve. For example I would prefer (& have started) 1 rake of Mark 1 coaches on the Rumney bogies, rather than several rakes on 'quicker' options.

Part of the problem is working out which wagons are in use in any particular location. There are some great archives with close up photos once you know the diagrams required, but overall photos generally centre around the loco and the rest of the train is hidden off in the grainy distance.

The DMU sideframes sound interesting though Justin, and those air ministry tanks do need to make their way in my direction!

[Paul Willis]

On a wider note, how many people are there out there that actually want to make stuff anymore? The loss of Eillen's is really worrying from my point of view as is the continued rise of as little work as possible RTR within the society. Far from giving people the time to do more interesting and involved things it just seems people more opportunity to do nothing. It will also never adequately cover the vast variety of wagon and coach types that could be seen in the steam and early diesel era. A glance at the annual RMweb wish list will point you to the tip of that iceberg. It was the sheer variety of wagons that were around in my period of interest and the array of details on those wagons that inspried me to start Rumney Models in the first place. If you want a model railway that does actually look like the real thing beyond the loco at the front of the train, you're going to need to build kits and when you're finished doing that you're going to have to start modfying them or creating stuff from scratch. If you want support from the trade to do that then you need to support suppliers or you'll find you need to do more by yourself as they fall by the wayside. The hobby has got used to ranges being endlessly available through being passed along to someone else. Given where the hobby is going is that going to continue?

Hi Justin,

I do feel that's a little disingenuous

As someone that has been modelling, on and off, the pre-Grouping/Edwardian era aver since I was aged 18, that's rather unfair. As there will be many modellers of this era to tell you, for almost everything in this period there is no alternative to "making stuff".

Other than Danny Pinnock's wonderful range of D&S kits, M&L in its time, and so on there has been nothing comprehensive to cover our interests. Even a Hornby J15 0-6-0 can't be turned into a GER Y14 without substantial modification, as a friend of mine has done on several models. And for all the pre-Grouping prototypes that have come out of the "NRM Collection" ranges and suchlike in recent years, they are actually "pre-Grouping as modified by BR" models, because they are laser scanned from the preserved examples. Not that having a starting point is better that nothing at all, but it isn't exactly out of the box.

So the need for suppliers to that era to meet the needs of modellers remains undiminished. As does the need to conduct "modelling" whatever that may be. Some of us long for a nice, easily converted *accurate* RTR model of the pre-Grouping or early post-Grouping period!

So I feel that your fears are mostly around the redundancy of the post-1955(ish) period, to date, when everything that can be scanned has been scanned. For example, is there a single class of BR post-TOPS diesel that *isn't* available RTR? So why should you model things...

For the pre-Grouping modeller, we can only dream

In best of spirits,
Paul

[Jol Wilkinson]

On a wider note, how many people are there out there that actually want to make stuff anymore? The loss of Eillen's is really worrying from my point of view as is the continued rise of as little work as possible RTR within the society. Far from giving people the time to do more interesting and involved things it just seems people more opportunity to do nothing. It will also never adequately cover the vast variety of wagon and coach types that could be seen in the steam and early diesel era. A glance at the annual RMweb wish list will point you to the tip of that iceberg. It was the sheer variety of wagons that were around in my period of interest and the array of details on those wagons that inspried me to start Rumney Models in the first place. If you want a model railway that does actually look like the real thing beyond the loco at the front of the train, you're going to need to build kits and when you're finished doing that you're going to have to start modfying them or creating stuff from scratch. If you want support from the trade to do that then you need to support suppliers or you'll find you need to do more by yourself as they fall by the wayside. The hobby has got used to ranges being endlessly available through being passed along to someone else. Given where the hobby is going is that going to continue?

Hi Justin,

I do feel that's a little disingenuous

As someone that has been modelling, on and off, the pre-Grouping/Edwardian era aver since I was aged 18, that's rather unfair. As there will be many modellers of this era to tell you, for almost everything in this period there is no alternative to "making stuff".

Other than Danny Pinnock's wonderful range of D&S kits, M&L in its time, and so on there has been nothing comprehensive to cover our interests. Even a Hornby J15 0-6-0 can't be turned into a GER Y14 without substantial modification, as a friend of mine has done on several models. And for all the pre-Grouping prototypes that have come out of the "NRM Collection" ranges and suchlike in recent years, they are actually "pre-Grouping as modified by BR" models, because they are laser scanned from the preserved examples. Not that having a starting point is better that nothing at all, but it isn't exactly out of the box.

So the need for suppliers to that era to meet the needs of modellers remains undiminished. As does the need to conduct "modelling" whatever that may be. Some of us long for a nice, easily converted *accurate* RTR model of the pre-Grouping or early post-Grouping period!

So I feel that your fears are mostly around the redundancy of the post-1955(ish) period, to date, when everything that can be scanned has been scanned. For example, is there a single class of BR post-TOPS diesel that *isn't* available RTR? So why should you model things...

For the pre-Grouping modeller, we can only dream

In best of spirits,
Paul

.
Hear, Hear.

[jjnewitt]

I do feel that's a little disingenuous

As someone that has been modelling, on and off, the pre-Grouping/Edwardian era aver since I was aged 18, that's rather unfair. As there will be many modellers of this era to tell you, for almost everything in this period there is no alternative to "making stuff".

Other than Danny Pinnock's wonderful range of D&S kits, M&L in its time, and so on there has been nothing comprehensive to cover our interests. Even a Hornby J15 0-6-0 can't be turned into a GER Y14 without substantial modification, as a friend of mine has done on several models. And for all the pre-Grouping prototypes that have come out of the "NRM Collection" ranges and suchlike in recent years, they are actually "pre-Grouping as modified by BR" models, because they are laser scanned from the preserved examples. Not that having a starting point is better that nothing at all, but it isn't exactly out of the box.

So the need for suppliers to that era to meet the needs of modellers remains undiminished. As does the need to conduct "modelling" whatever that may be. Some of us long for a nice, easily converted *accurate* RTR model of the pre-Grouping or early post-Grouping period!

So I feel that your fears are mostly around the redundancy of the post-1955(ish) period, to date, when everything that can be scanned has been scanned. For example, is there a single class of BR post-TOPS diesel that *isn't* available RTR? So why should you model things...

For the pre-Grouping modeller, we can only dream

In best of spirits,
Paul

Why is it unfair Paul, I didn't say that nobody made anything anymore? There will always be people who plough their own furrow, some through choice, some through necessity. Long may it continue. A unique, hand built model is always going to be more interesting, to me at least. I'll still be doing it (hopefully) many years from now. Creating kits is a massive part of my hobby and I can't imagine it not being so. I can imagine a time when I'm not selling them though.

My point was that I see less people making things for themseleves. My volumes have declined big time over the past three years. I talk to other suppliers and they say they haven't sold much for ages. Where's the hobby going? Super duper RTR and cheap and cheerful 3D prints. That doesn't sound like a very interesting world to me. The RTR boys like Accurascale are trying to sell the notion that you can have whatever you want, down to every last detail and it won't cost a lot. You don't need to expend any effort and don't worry about making stuff because we'll do it sooner or later and it will never be as good (like it has to be!). Of course it's a load of rubbish but I worry what the notion does to this end of the hobby. The more reliant you become on it the less you will have in the way of skills to do things for yourself. Perhaps modellers will react against it and everyone will start modelling pre-grouping.

Why the great longing for accurate RTR anyway? What does having it change for the pre-grouping modeller?

Justin

[jjnewitt]

One set of projects I've discussed with Justin are ammonia & methanol tankers - the latter Hornby do a reasonable superstructure to potentially start from.

Hi Pete, I'm not sure if I said but the artwork for the Methanol tanks is done. Not sure exactly when I'll get the test etch done, soonish but not on the next round as the sheets are full. I've made a start on the anhydrous ammonia tanks but not got past outlines yet. The bodies for those will probably be printed given teh nature of them and the walkways.

Part of Justin's problem is of course his age

... and lack of professional pension to lean on...

Aside from the question of time, there is the balance of what we all want, or 'need', to achieve. For example I would prefer (& have started) 1 rake of Mark 1 coaches on the Rumney bogies, rather than several rakes on 'quicker' options.

You raise an interesting about volume of stuff. I'm under no illusions that I will end up with much less stuff on my train set than others. I'm not going to build 50 locos, 500 wagons and 200 coaches. Time and cost will see to that and I'm very happy with it. I like things that I have had a significant input and that look really good, so there is a compromise to be made. The train set will be designed with that in mind and stock will have to work for a living.

Justin

[Tony Wilkins]

Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy for Justin's viewpoint. Looking at his Air Ministry tank wagons, they are absolutely exquisite and I would love to have a few, but just how long would it take to build 4 of them? Those of you who have been following my Brimsdown thread will know that I need a lot of wagons. My target is 525, of which about half will be 16T mineral wagons. There are plenty of variants among those alone, which I am trying to incorporate. In order to have any hope of getting somewhere near this number I have opted for a program of using converted RTR where possible and kits, both with modifications where suitable followed by a program of upgrades time permitting. I am only too well aware of the shortcomings of some of items of rolling stock I am currently using. Scratch building is a last resort and thus far the only scratch built wagon I have running on the layout was cascaded from Heckmondwike and repainted.
I would most certainly be interested in the DMU sideframes as there are not many decent options currently.
The chemical tank wagons will also be of interest. If I have one problem, it is that the amount of traffic that my line typically saw well exceeds the capacity I have to store it and so one needs to be somewhat selective.
Regards
Tony.

[jim s-w]

Where's the hobby going? Super duper RTR and cheap and cheerful 3D prints. That doesn't sound like a very interesting world to me.
Justin

Agreed. Of course there's no one way to do stuff but I do sometimes feel that those who boast about spending loads of money to amass lots of RTR stuff are missing an enormous part of the hobby

Cheers

Jim

[Albert Hall]

If I can add my experience to the debate. Around two decades ago when we saw some pretty good RTR models appear, I decided that was the way to go to put together the sort of layout I craved with lots of operational interest. I became addicted to buying lots of locos and rolling stock to get me going. I was buying half a dozen locos at a time as new models were released. I suppose it was a sort of buy now philosophy in case availability was short lived. I also bought lots of kits and components (including some of Justin’s etched parts and many Masokits bits), even putting together folders of information with what looked like best practice from the various publications and forums, this one included. This was all done in the mistaken belief that there were enough years left to convert everything to finer scale standards. Realising this was the case, I embarked on a large layout in 00 gauge using proprietary track. That was the Achilles heel for me because it looked so unrealistic compared with what others were achieving. In frustration I ripped it up and sold it on to a club months before I watched the Norman Solomon Right Track video which did show how such track could be made to look more presentable. I was then left with that mountain of stuff to convert to run on much better looking track for which I had decided would be to P4 standards. The problem was that with so much raw material to work with I just couldn’t decide where to start. In frustration I disposed of all the boxes and kits as a way of resetting the clock.

The only thing I kept was my tool chest in the hope that inspiration might return at some point. That point is gradually returning but now I have another conundrum. Eyesight and deteriorating manual dexterity suggests I will have to move up a scale. There is unlikely to be room for a layout with massive operational interest even if there were enough years left. I am now tending towards just a bit of kit building even if it means joining a relevant club to see it running or possibly a short shunting plank test track at home. But there is a temptation to again buy some RTR stuff just to get going. The danger is that history might repeat itself and with no financial constraints which many of the younger generation have to contend with, it could get out of control once more. Before I buy anything, I need to critically analyse why I want and need it.

In answer to Jim’s comment, yes I did miss an enormous part of the hobby by trying to run before I learnt to walk. “Softly softly catchee monkey” springs to mind.

Roy

[Richard Oldfield]

Hi,

As a relatively late adopter of Justin's kits and components (I saw them as a bit too finicky and perhaps a bit pricey when I first came across them), I am now a great supporter of his work.

I see the ultra-detailed etched underframes to be an enjoyable build and a sure route to reliable running. In many ways if Justin is motivated enough to clamber under wagons, measure them and convert the results in to a well-thought out etch (with good instructions) then I am not going to be put off by the soldering intricacies. Furthermore we have used his achievements to re-calibrate what we expect as a finescale model fit to run on Mostyn.

I dont think the time taken to build Justin's underframes/kits is significantly different to the time we would have taken 'pre-Justin', there is simply a change from scratchbuilding/fettling to an approach more reliant on soldering competency. It eliminates one challenge and therefore frees us up to do some proper modelling in other areas.

As an example here is a demountable bromine tank on a Conflat A running on Mostyn. It has Justin's underframe plus scratchbuilt body and tank.

20220803_130536.jpg

We commissioned Justin to develop bogie bolster C 'kits' for Mostyn in order to save time compared with the substantial butchery required to convert the Bachmann rtr offering to finescale standards. Here they are mixed with Bachmann-based bogie bolster Ds.

20220812_193259cp.jpg

There are still plenty of areas where I believe Justin's approach could lead to superior results for the diesel era modeller. Tank wagons are an obvious target and I would also like to see a better Presflo.

Cheers,

Richard

[billbedford]

Where's the hobby going? Super duper RTR and cheap and cheerful 3D prints.

Justin

You can have expensive 3D prints any time you like, just ask, all pre-grouping too for those who haven't noticed.

[billbedford]

My volumes have declined big time over the past three years. I talk to other suppliers and they say they haven't sold much for ages. Where's the hobby going? Super duper RTR and cheap and cheerful 3D prints. That doesn't sound like a very interesting world to me. The RTR boys like Accurascale are trying to sell the notion that you can have whatever you want, down to every last detail and it won't cost a lot.

As far as I can see the amount of time and effort needed to originate a model, whether it's etched, 3D printed or injection moulded is comparable. If a manufacturer has enough capital to go down the injection moulding route he has a better chance of getting a return on his investment than with other routes, if only because his final product has a greater sales volume potential.