RTR Loco

[Hobby]

In other words what we already have now except for the couplings, Ted!  ;)

[pilotfriend]

In other words, this is just what is happening on the market now. As far as 3D printing is concerned, I think there is a country mile in resolution improvement before this is a possibility. The models on offer right now are nowhere near the finish one can see with resin casting and white metal. The best material for locomtives is still brass/nickel silver and the preparation of frets is quite easy.

I quite fail to see why we should feel we need to coax non modellers into 009 and supply them with crude toys. Some of the best tourist lines are narrow gauge and those who wish to move into that field will be inspired by NG16s etc and not by a toy.

This thread seems to me to be wanting to send 009 back to the 1960s era. Anybody for playing Minitrains on the kitchen table?
JdF

[tedp]

Well, perhaps we already have some (nearly) RTR on those lines, like the Chris Ward range. These are however nothing like near scale, although useful freelance models in themselves.

The resolution question JdF comments on is indeed a problem. But I expect we will see improvements in this area over the next years, just like we saw in 2D resolution (TV screens and photography).

John, I'm afraid I don't agree to what you say about sending 009 back into the 60s. Judging from the amount of attention this thread has had, there is a demand for RTR models. It crops up regularly. The main issue is how realistic they can be made, and I agree there is room for improvement. Both you and I have considerable experience in scratchbuilding and kit construction. We both found our own way into it. I have great respect for what you achieved in this field. But I feel for some newcomers in 009 it is a big step to start constructing their own rolling stock, let alone locomotives.

I would rather see a fresh 009 modeller successfully build a little working layout, using RTR stock, than having him or her wrestle with a kit and give up through inexperience. After all, excellent layouts have been built in H0e, using nothing but RTR stock.

[Hobby]

The best material for locomtives is still brass/nickel silver and the preparation of frets is quite easy.

I'm intrigued why you excluded plastic (kits) in that list, John... Whilst it costs more the finish is easily the equal of brass or n/s I'd have thought.

[pilotfriend]

Only because I forgot.......... as long as it is not a bloody Pug! ;D

[Tigger]

Please don't get them started on Pugs, John!!!! ;D

[duttonbay]

Or you could model in HOn3 building all your own 10.5mm gauge track, rolling stock, and locomotives

I thought that there was a fair sized market in the US for HOn3? Sure I've seen commercially produced track and kits for stock...

Blackstone Models produce very fine locos and rolling stock RTR in HOn3.  Perfect, if you are modelling Colorado, although the C19 is a standard Baldwin loco which ran elsewhere.
http://www.blackstonemodels.com/
I have seen examples of these locos and cars here in Australia, as there are probably more people modelling US narrow gauge here than either Australian or British. There are beautiful models, and run like a charm straight out of the box.

There's an interesting comment on the K27 page:
Non-Weathered K-27 locomotives will be listed at $475.00, and Weathered K-27 locomotives will be listed at $530.00. Due to the limited nature of this release, all units will be offered only as sound-equipped models.

So, RTR and fitted with a soundtraxx DCC decoder, but although there is a big market for HOn3 in the US, still costs $475. That's over

[Hobby]

Cheap compared with Bemo, and their's aren't even DCC'd!

[Graeme Dunbar]

I am starting to get the feeling that the last thing we want is mass-produced RTR 009 locos. It has echoes of the Monkey's Paw about it.

Should the impossible happen and mass produced models appeared on the shelves and their new owners not have the good sense to keep them to themselves we could well see exhibitions full of clones in the same way as once upon a time you couldn't open a MR magazine without seeing a GWR branch line terminus. We would not see a whole catalogue of models, just a few, perhaps just one.

It is an impossible situation. For the model to have "buy me" written all over it for a newcomer it is probably going to be something very recognizable. For the sanity of the hobby it would be better to have a Cinderella loco that could lurk unnoticed in larger numbers. There is a very good reason why Mallard and the Flying Scotsman have probably never been out of production, but how many "modellers" have the right layout on which to run them? Luckily for the manufacturers it means they can produce and sell other models along with them.

I suspect the people who say we need something like a quarry Hunslet are actually thinking of all the ways they can bash or repaint them as they would not be seen dead using them out of the box like the beginners. I also suspect the people who equate RTR = mass produced in China are really thinking about donor models.

I am not sure there are many new modellers starting out who really would not tolerate an HOe loco on their first layout. If they become so committed and involved in creating a good realistic representation of an actual UK NG railway and don't have the skills to make the models themselves then they will find a way for someone to build them for them. Being historically accurate, said modeller will probably not need a vast fleet of locos. If the "target price" for RTR is

[pilotfriend]

I have actually been approached by three firms enquiring as to the cost of limited batch production. The most popular choice has always been my freelance Mallets.

This is how that particular locomotive breaks down

basic loco unlined and panelled (black or dark green) not fitted with DCC or lights.

donor chassis (2) 

[tedp]

I don't think a Mallet should be the only RTR model people would be after. An articulated is rather a complicated machine which even in standard gauge RTR would be at the top end of the market. What John does is calculating the price of a complicated and beautifully detailed hand built model.

Now consider a 4-wheel tank loco produced with inexpensive techniques and unmodified chassis, that can be run 'as is' without modification or finishing.

New Kato four-wheel chassis - 25 pounds
N-drive chassis - 42 pounds
3d printed and spray painted body shell (estimate) - 20 pounds

Total for a tram type engine - 45 pounds
Total for a rod coupled engine - 62 pounds

Prices tally with the quotes by Chris Ward. They aren't far off the mark compared to basic standard gauge RTR models.
The only remaining problem is the rough surface finish of current 3d prints which need extensive polishing. So it still falls short of the requirement of a RTR loco that needs no attention before it can be put on a layout. I think it is a question of time before that is solved.

As Graeme says, the way forward is the cottage industry and small batch built models.
It needn't be expensive. ;D

[duttonbay]

Cheap compared with Bemo, and their's aren't even DCC'd!

True, but seems to me (from the other side of the world) that 009 modellers are not up to spending that amount of money on a locomotive.

[Hobby]

Oh how right you are!  ;D

At the end of the day you pay for what you get... At the moment if you want a half decent finish on 3d printing then it seems you need to double the price over the "normal" price, even then the finish isn't up to the standard of plastic/brass... I'd agree with Ted that 3d is the way forward, but not yet as the quality as compared with any plastic rtr model just isn't there... Maybe in a year or two's time...

[rhobat bryn]

I am not sure there are many new modellers starting out who really would not tolerate an HOe loco on their first layout.

You make a number of very interesting points Graeme of which this is one.  It raises the question of whether there is a market abroad for British outline HOe models.  I don't know the answer but it's one worth considering.

I think the best compromise would be using readily available N gauge chassis like Kato or Tomix, and designing 3D printed body shells to go with them. I think this has been mentioned already. It would be possible to produce near-scale models or good freelance interpretations of popular prototypes. How about this:

• I think the key to a successful approach would be a short time to market and being able to break even on small series and within a short time.
• 3D printing may be a good approach provided the printing resolution would be fine enough.
• Design is said to be very easy and production can be farmed out or even, if the producer invests in a printer, done in his own workshop.
• Chassis changes can be accommodated within reason. Perhaps a chassis mounting template could be made for popular chassis, to include in each design
• About painting I don't know but a basic finishing spray coat, couplings and lettering transfers could be included.
• As soon as demand falls, production is stopped. Other demands are analysed and met as they seem viable.

To end on a positive note, I think the way forward is the cottage industry, small batch built models. A difficulty many beginners face is painting their models satisfactorily. For the sake of the hobby it is best that there is variety and given the very small size of the market this would seem to have the potential to fulfil it. Good on the individuals and small businesses that are working towards these aims.

It would appear that a consensus is emerging on building on the small number of artisan craftsmen as the way forward.  These have been identified as Paul Windle, Neville Kent and Chris Ward.

For this to work, the business model would have to include:

The ability to produce short-run batches of locos and cover costs;
A reliable source of chassises;
An improved quality of 3D printing;
Alternative approaches to assembling bodies in the interim;
Either a variety of painting finishes or the ability to customise them.

At present, the second item seems to be the most pressing.  I have already referred to my own experience of the years it took to get a suitable chassis for for my own loco.  But Paul Windle in a letter responding to my request for a catalogue spoke of the difficulties associated with chassis supplies.  It seems bizarre in this day and age that we appear to be incapable of solving this problem.  It's not possible to say anything else that would be useful without understanding the production process.  Therefore chassis production processes will be my next field of research.

[pilotfriend]

Well, Rhobat, no one can say you give up! I earlier listed some excellent chassis that are available already. Why do you want to start another project?

At present, 3d printing has more acne on the surface than a 14 year old teenager. It will be more than a couple of years before things will change here. What the hell is wrong with resin casts?

For those who wish to start NG modelling, they will almost certainly wish to have a model of a prototype. To my knowledge, there are no 'tram' locos working on preserved lines. Tram locos are the preserve of 009 modellers who cannot do cylinders and valve gear and just want to hide a diesel chassis (exception of the GVT, of course)....... lazy modelling, in fact.

I question whether the Neville chassis is sufficiently robust for buyers of toys.

I certainly cannot understand why one would wish to start with a 4 wheel chassis. Less pick-up wheels on the road which will mean far satisfactory operation for the beginner. Enough built in problems to be certain that the modeller will quit.

For those who wish to buy RTR there is already and excellent source of differing models. It is called EBay.

JdF