For some while I have been suggesting that a G3 "train set" is required to compete for the attention of those starting out in large scale/garden railways when they are investigating LGB, Bachmann and other G45 products.
The problem with G3 is that unless you are an experienced modeller with the confidence to spend quite a bit of cash on kits (and have the time and skills to construct those kits) then LGB, etc. are the easy option and more so if you have young family members who are impatient to see the trains running.
Assembling all the components for an operational G3 railway can be time-consuming and frustrating with the need to trawl through the lists of numerous suppliers (many or whom do not advertise in those places where most would think of looking) and then probably still not finding all you need (as an example, scale buffer stops in G3 are as rare as hens' teeth).
What is needed to attract a "migration" to G3 (and in consequence greater "trader" confidence to produce more items) is a "turnkey" solution.
This is an age where everything is expected to be "on tap" if it is to succeed.
Cost is an issue but not a major one (just look at the prices of LGB) it is availability and convenience that is the deterrent.
What, in my view, is required (and I believe several others share that view to a lesser or greater extent) is a "train set" which is RTR (ready-to-run) straight out of the box.
We need a RTR loco, a few RTR wagons plus some track and a power supply priced at below 1000GBP, just like a "grown up" Hornby set, suitable as a Christmas present for a youngster or as a starter pack for someone either moving "upscale" or starting afresh in later life. The main pre-requisite is that there need be no modelling experience required to assemble the starter pack.
At the Dereham exhibition I was discussing this with John Witts and Mark Thatcher and we all share this view.
I noticed at the same exhibition a professional modeller who hand-builds locos, carriages and wagons to order in plastic. Although most of his display consisted of 4mm and 7mm items, it did include a LSWR brake van in G3.
I considered it worthwhile sounding him out on the possibility of producing a G3 0-6-0T loco (RTR) for sub 600GBP.
The discussion revolved around the possibility of the Society providing the running chassis parts (which I roughly costed out at 250 max.) with the plastic boiler and cab/bunker unit being hand-built to fit and the loco supplied RTR for an additional sum no greater than 350GBP.
There was great interest shown in the project an offer was forthcoming to build a sample in order to properly cost the bodywork aspect.
Before this progresses any further, the Committee needs to discuss the practicalities and the design aspects need to be worked out.
My own view is that a GWR prototype would be the most attractive proposition from a sales viewpoint (yes, I can hear the groans!) but there are also practical reasons for this.
A saddle tank would add variety to what is already available and the GWR 2021 class was originally built as a saddle tank. Why the 2021 class?
Well, GRS produce the pannier tank rebuild which means that wheels, buffers and other parts are already available.
Why choose a "largish" loco rather than a small 0-4-0ST?
The L&YR "Pug" has beeen suggested but my view is that we should choose a design which has the potential to be offered to established G3 modellers (and even as a starter pack loco) the option of battery power and radio control which would be difficult to accommodate in too small a loco.
I have started the ball rolling, so now let's hear your views!
Errrmmm....
I know I retire next month -but my brain is not quite dead yet... I would be fascinated to see some figures because it seems that your level of costing is
vastly different to mine!!!
£250 for just the CHASSIS???
I am a little busy at the moment -but give me a couple of hours to sit down and do some costings. There are two locos that would fit the bill for this -the Clayton (class 17) and the Western (class 52). The former is freight only -but visually very appealing the latter is freight and passenger but simply lovely. A third loco could be The Metro loco(?) "Sarah Siddons" and "Sherlock Homes" are still around!
regards
ralph
Hi Ralph.
I discussed steam versus diesel with the "body-builder" chap and he was adamant that a steam loco is simpler (and thus cheaper) to build than a diesel or electric.
My chassis costing was based as follows:-
60 for laser cut frames, coupling rods,running plate, spacers and fixings ; 80 for motor/gearbox from GRS ; 100 for for Slaters wheelsets plus a bit for couplings and any other minor bits.
Mike has since looked at my calculations and believes them to be about right but commented that we might save a bit by not using Slaters wheels and shopping around for a motor and using small manufacturers for other parts.
Remember, we are talking about ease of assembly for the supplier (the final product is to be RTR) and any small cost cutting in components could lead to a greater escalation in assembly cost.
Look forward to seeing your proposals.
Regards,
John.
GRS has (from time to time) offered their RTR GWR tank with a couple of wagons and a brake van for about 680 pounds (or so - I forget the exact price). I do seem to remember they had this deal at Reading ALSM a couple of years ago when John Witts had 'Warton Road' next to the GRS stand. I'm not sure how many they sold but it was an attractive offer and I think they did sell a few. My main point is that "price point" is not the only factor in any project like this, although it certainly is one of them.
If this was a commercial venture, I would immediately be asking who the "Audience" for this "Product" was going to be? Indeed, it would be interesting to know what the 'profile' of the people who DID purchase the GRS bundle was?
From the description it seems they are people who are a) going to make a fairly large impulse purchase, b) have no previous modelling skills and c) are willing to accept a pre-defined solution (e.g. a GWR based one).
So I have to ask - what is the size of this audience? And perhaps of more importance, how are we going to reach them (e.g. communicate with them)? The 'Field of Dreams' approach ("If we build it, they will come") very rarely works in my experience.
My personal opinion is that the Gauge '3' marketplace is already developing at a pretty good pace. The range of G3 "products" available now is markedly better than just five years ago. This is beginning to develop into a virtuous circle, in that G3 is attracting more interest from Modellers and this increased interest is (in turn) attracting more attention from the 'Trade'. There may well be ways of encouraging this development but (I'm sorry, in my view) it won't be by trying to target the kind of people described above. The G3 "market" is simply not mature enough at this time for this kind approach – and anyway, we have suppliers like GRS already offering it.
Far better to first well define your target audience(s) and think about the 'barriers to entry' for these specific groups. I would argue that this will be far more effective than trying to "short circuit" the natural development of the G3 marketplace. For instance, what will be attractive to existing 16mm or G scale modellers? How can we attract experienced 4mm Modellers? Are there experienced Model Engineers who would like to down-scale gauge and do scenic modelling in the garden?
Having said all of this – I have no problem AT ALL with any initiatives that support G3 (like the one below). It's just that I believe there are 'easier' people out there to convert to our cause and much more effective ways of doing it.
I'll await the "Flaming" I now expect to get! :)
regards,
IanT
P.S. And for the very young - the most obvious (and appropriate solution ) is a simple "Thomas" conversion? What a nice Christmas present.
Ian,
No "flaming" .....it is a reasoned approach and I respect your views.
The fact is that (apart from the GRS Prairie which is quite expensive at the standard price of c.1100GBP) there is no RTR loco unless you commission one from a professional (either scratch-built or kit-built).
I am not expecting such "train sets" to sell like hot cakes.... a few p.a. would be a start but it would reach out to an audience who would otherwise shun G3 out of hand as being impractical.
Regards,
John.
Back in 1969, and having been brought up with EM Gauge, I was very taken by 7mm, but the push I needed to start was the Tri-ang Big Big train - ready to run, cheap, quite decent representation of a real engine and stock which could be improved over time. The fact that they were slightly obscure prototypes was only a minor drawback.
I think the same could work for Gauge 3, but whether I represent a large number of typical potential converts I have no idea.
Mike
I have to agree with Ian, we have to assess our target market, and though I started in G0 with a Lima "train set", is a circuit of 'set track' really practical in G3 in the average size home?
As Ian states, for the youngsters, Thomas (and Percy) are the obvious choice, so as a quick starter how about a supply of bodies and a simple 2-rail pick-up RTR chassis. I would suggest we stick to Slater's wheels so that chassis can also be used for more advanced modeller to scratch-build his own body, thus giving a bigger market.
But I also believe if we want to attract more modellers to G3, we have to show that it is practical to build a small (shunting puzzle) layout in the average home/garage or garden - the type of layout that is very popular as an entry level to G0 and G1. Therefore I'm sure that there is a market for a RTR small 2-rail pick-up industrial loco, L&Y Pug or something similar. There will not be many out there that will suddenly decide to build a large Steam and/or Radio Controlled garden layout in G3, but once they are hooked with a smaller layout, it is something they can aspire to.
Derek.
Hello Derek,
My target market would be those who opt for LGB/Bachmann G scale.
If in ,say, "00" gauge there were no Hornby or British outline Bachmann models, then we would see a pre-dominance of continental or North American outline layouts in that scale (the person requiring a British "00" model would be in a similar situation to the follower of G3).
I believe that, given the ready availability of British outline G (3) scale RTR models that a proportion (if not the majority) would prefer to have a "familiar" British outline model rather than a "foreign" scene.
After all, Aster and Bachmann have been testing the water for some while in British outline in gauge 0, gauge 1 and (in the case of Bachmann) gauge 3.
It could be argued that if Aster and Bachmann had not entered the G1 market, then G1 would not be where it is today.
I agree "Thomas" has its possibilities but again it requires conversion and would certainly not be my "cup of tea".
A railway enthusiast father, using a son as an excuse to buy a train set, may well prefer a prototypical model to a "fantasy" model.
Regards,
John.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you -but you know how it is sometimes...
John.
Here is your rough costings for the Chassis for a Western Locomotive and could be used for frankly any C0-C0 locomotive in this sort of area. The Module 1 and Facet Bogie are designed to be cut from flat steel plate with a hacksaw -yes it is a "Kitchen Sink Engineering" design. Thus it requires nothing that could not be found in a normal workshop. A light engineering shop with a power bandsaw would make light(!) work of it... The parts are also designed to be Arc welded together -something that would be done outside and not by the Kitchen Sink with wife and child around.
The bodywork would either be made by extrusion or more likely nowadays simply printed on a RepRap. I have worked out that it would need circa 1.5Kg of ABS "feed" and take around 25 hours to "print" at normal resolution (0.5mm). It would be done in two sections and then stuck together.
http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/western1.pdf (http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/western1.pdf)
http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/western2.pdf (http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/western2.pdf)
regards
ralph
Ok -having eaten!
John.
Here is your rough costing for the "Clayton".
http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/clayton1.pdf (http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/clayton1.pdf)
I know that I have used the same wheels for the two locomotives and thus they sit slightly "down" and slightly "up" respectively. The BR spec said that there should be no more than 1 inch diameter difference between wheels on the same bogie. The RSA 37 wheel comes in at 3 feet 6 inches... I can live with it!!! If I was going to produce modern outline diesels and electrics I would produce a wheel that was 3 feet 8 inches.
regards
ralph
Just back from the workshop, and very conscious of labour content and its cost... The bill of materials for a Clayton is a starting point, but would need much fleshing out, depending crucially on quantities, manufacturing processes, and the many other factors that drive the overheads and therefore the selling price. It might work by outsourcing the finished components and finding someone to assemble and package the final set. Profit? Yes - you have to make a living, too.
The most basic piece of information needed for costing is the size of the probable market. Is it hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands? Will a department store or a mail order catalogue pick it up for Christmas? You have to ask them, and then get a commitment. I have to admit that one of my products bombed because the market research turned out to be a mirage when the product was ready. Everyone loved it, but not enough of them actually wanted to own one.
It will not be easy to reach the general public with a G3 train set, though I like the idea. Advertising in the established model railway press might be like preaching to the converts, so I wonder if the full size railway magazines before the Christmas frenzy begins would be good targets?
My own inclination would be for a steam prototype, though I don't know about those big shiny green things with brass bits that used to populate the bottom left hand corner of the country... My favourites are mostly from north of the border.
Andrew
I think the "starter set" will more likely be a series of modules to assemble a number of locos from -rather than a specific loco. The Society is around 200 members and to be honest I doubt more than 6 or 7 of them would want any 1 particular loco... What we need are versions of IP Engineerings "De Luxe 4wd Chassis" and "Budget Chassis" that can be hacked, cobbled or bashed into providing what the builder requires. There also needs to be a G3 Equivalent of the Unit Steam Engine -even Matthew can put one of those together(!) If there is some form of "starter set" then it either has to be available in "instalments" or "modules" that can be purchased as and when the builder requires them.
The B.O.M.for both the Western and the Clayton took only about 1 1/2 hours and then 10 minutes respectively, which shows how once the modules are in place it is pretty easy to "hand roll" a locomotive spec.
It will be interesting to see how the "Cheap and Cheerful" fairs against the "Costly Laser Cutter"???
regards
ralph
PS I come from a heavy steam background a RR class 15A, an SAR/SAS GMAM, and an EAR class 18 are "normal sized locos" for me!!!
This is all very interesting, but I think a bit naive.
Don't forget these new converts are going to need some track, not many of us have a house big enough to have an indoor G3 layout - maybe the garden then ?
A yard of Cliff's track is £11.00 a turnout £95.00 ( do a few sums )
G3 is a specialist area of model railways, G1 less so, but both Bachmann and Accucraft have pulled out of the G1 RTR market, the market is now supplied by short run brass loco's with a 30% price increase in the offing.
So we are talking short run G3 kit built or rather expensive scratchbuilt/commision alternatives for a train set - for rolling stock and loco's - I don't see any alternative.
From a personal viewpoint ( and with an unhidden agenda ) I have produced two G3 wagon kits and a G3 Ruston 48DS kit, most of the patterns are made and the majority of the castings are available, the correct wheels are in the pipeline and the kits will be available in the not too distant future. I could build them as RTR but with a full time job, that would take the fun away - would you buy a Ruston for £500 ?
As you can imagine these have been produced for me in the first instance and it is my investment, I am fully aware there is no profit in this venture, mainly because of the prototypes
( no pretty branch line engines here ) and the fact that the techniques ( etched nickel silver and brass ) are not to everyones taste.
I view this thread with interest.
Regards
Richard
With only 200 members and perhaps the same number again of "interested onlookers" the G3 market is far too small for a commercial company to produce a R-T-R trainset at any sensible price. It just wouldn't be worth their time.
The only way it could happen is if such a trainset was made for the toy market. To give an example, a few years ago I purchased a Gauge 1 "Wild West Train Set" from Toys-R Us. It cost eighty pounds and consisted of a battery powered loco (with sound and smoke), tender, three wagons and a caboose plus a circuit of plastic track.
These trainsets do two things for us. Firstly they stimulate an interest in our scale amongst people who buy it as a toy and secondly they give us enthusiasts a basis for kit bashing.
Peter
At the moment, I am sitting back and watching the reaction to the original suggestion.
At this point I would comment that, with regard to the cost and "space" aspects, there are vast numbers of LGB followers who have no problem spending considerable sums of money on locos and stock nor finding the space to run it.
The aim would be to get them to follow G3 British prototypes, rather than Continental / American.
There is not likely to be a mass conversion from LGB but if the option is before them when starting out.....you never know.
John.
I have read the above thread with interest, and do broadly agree with John Candy in all respects - drawing from my own humble beginnings. It was a 'starter set' that got me into N gauge, another that introduced me to OO, and finally a third that migrated me to LGB. Even 16mm has similar offerings. I think the secret is not to get too hung up on exactly what that starter set may contain, but to price something as realistically as possible to provide an entry level to the hobby with minimum financial outlay. This will probably then dictate that any set would comprise an oval of track, a controller an 0-4-0 shunter and two or three wagons, in much the same way as the LGB starter sets do.
Let's also not forget that being broadly the same scale as 16mm & G scale, G64 would make an ideal companion to any railwayist's existing line in these scales, providing an impressive mainline feeder line backdrop to an existing 16mm narrow gauge line, for example. Actually that is exactly why I bought into G64, although happily model still in 16mm as I know, broadly, the line infrastructure is cross-transferable.
I note however that there is a small market base currently in G64. One contributor points this out, with only 200 members and perhaps as many again working in G64 – why would any manufacturer/retailer indulge in this concept in the first place? Surely that is exactly the reason why a starter set is needed - to encourage people who model in other compatible scales to take a step up in size to gauge three – and there are plenty of 16mm/G scale folk out there.
So commercially, who would or could take this on? Maybe GRS, maybe even Bachmann, converting their Thomas goods stock has already been done, so it would be do-able, with minimum tool-up costs. Perhaps the society needs to put more focus however, not on what the existing membership would like to see in a starter set - but try more to get into the minds of potential purchasers and give thought to what they would buy!
As for advertising, that surely will be down to whoever takes this project on. Of course as I write for Garden Rail (and I know GRS are regular advertisers) then I am bound to recommend this as a starting point. Incidentally, I see the 16mm Association and The G Scale Society are regular advertisers in Garden Rail, but we are conspicuous by our absence. So why are we the best kept secret? After all, there is no point in going to all the hassle of making a starter set if no one knows about it, is there?
So we have 200 or so members, with yearly subs at £25.00. Could we not spend a little of that cash on a regular ad? There are 5500 or so regular subscribers to Garden Rail, plus OTC sales. I bet the increased membership funds generated would cover the ad easily!
There are of course many views – another alternative view could be "why do we want to grow the market/club, enough new stuff/membership is coming through anyway, and we are happy the size we are" That was exactly the view I got on one of our own railway club's AGMs – and frankly I can see that point of view too.
Somebody once said to me about clubs and societies (in this case a car club) that he saw no point joining in the first place to pay to stand in a muddy field to look at the same vintage of cars that he already owned! In fact many people I am sure, whatever the incentive, will choose to remain singular and will continue to plough their own furrow. Perhaps it is the job of the Gauge 3 Society to, at the very least, raise the awareness of the organisation to allow those unaware of us to make an informed choice in the first instance.
Mark Thatcher
Thanks for your valued contribution Mark.
On the question of advertising I guess we can't do everything at once. After appearing at model engineering shows for a long time, recently we shifted emphasis after deciding that our new members were most likely to be moving up from the smaller scales, so that is where we have concentrated our efforts. I am sure we could also entice some from the narrow gauge fraternity, so that's a useful suggestion for the committee to consider - thank you.
Mike
quote:
The aim would be to get them to follow G3 British prototypes, rather than Continental / American.
unquote:
EEEERRRMMMM....
John.
I would ask you examine that statement in light of what has been produced by UK Manufacturers and what has run on UK rails imported from overseas Manufacturers. Also I would ask you to examine the design influences... As Far As I Know there is nothing in the constitution that says that "The Gauge '3' Society" is strictly British outline locomotives? The Spur II Gruppe has a far more relaxed attitude to what its members build and run.
regards
ralph
Ralph,
Fair comment!
It is simply that the "starter set" (if it ever comes to fruition) is 99.999....% likely to be based around a British steam loco.
The reference to Continental and American was really aimed at LGB G45 products, I have no objection to people running foreign trains on G3 (even in this country) ....it's just that there are none (so far as I am aware) available to purchase RTR....but then perhaps you know otherwise?
Regards,
John.
As Far As I Know... There are no CURRENT suppliers of Ready To Run locomotives. But I would keep my eyes on Brawa AG and there is a company in India that is producing Indian electric locomotives that offer them on eBay.
regards
ralph
Ralph,
Yes, Paul Industrial Co. (P-line Models) somewhere near Calcutta (or should I say Kolkata) contacted me a month or two back asking for weblinks (which I have placed in the "Trade Window" section of www.gauge3.org.uk) and giving a resume of their intentions in the field of G3.
They could prove to be a source of low cost components for any locos or other items which we may require.
John.
Just got back from a very pleasant BBQ near Portsmouth, where it was pouring with rain last night but where (given large volumes of 'Bishops Finger') we still managed to have a very enjoyable evening.
In my brief absence, there have certainly been a few differing views posted on this subject.
As stated earlier, I have my own views on how any market develops and the best way to help it along in small easily 'do-able' steps. But even so, perhaps I can make a helpful suggestion here?
In terms of the mythical "Starter" engine (the Holy Grail of G3?) why start all over trying to re-invent things? A great deal of work has already been done on the design of the 'Venture' - which effectively is a 'group build' of a highly detailed, live steam, scale, LNWR Cauliflower that is detailed elsewehere on this Forum.
I think it has always been Mike's intention (beyond the initial live steam engine build) to make parts available to Members who wanted to self-build either a live steam OR an electric version. Indeed there is a photo in the September NL of Ken Cottle's version of 'Venture', which he is building as a small electric tender locomotive. If a small group want to develop a G3 starter engine - why not talk to Mike about helping him to bring an electric kit along in parallel to the live steam project. Most of the work you need to build this engine has been done, a prototype model exists and it would be a scale model of a real prototypical engine. Nor do i see why it could not be done for a "reasonable" sum (Mike can advise) compared to the live steam engine.
I would stress the word "help" - if some of you really want to do this, then please make sure you are going to take on the workload yourself - not just expect Mike and his team to double up their efforts!
Once you've sorted the engine, the rest of the "Train Set" should be pretty simple by comparison! :)
Regards,
IanT
Well, I'll ask the question and then duck!!
Mike, any chance of an electric Cauliflower for around 600GBP?
John.
P.S. I should have added.....RTR (suppose it might be possible if we have it made in China).
In my capacity as compiler of "The Technical Manual" I have often asked for information about "Venture"... An electric version would be less expensive to produce as there is no expensive boiler work. The motor and drive chain would be hidden inside the tender (why make life complicated?) I will be honest and state that I don't think that "Venture" is a suitable starter loco. It is going to be a watchmakers dream of a thing and therefore could not really take the hammer that a starter loco would have to.
My son has started building an LMS 1831 based on a chassis from GRS that I bought at the 2010 AGM. OK Balsa wood and lollipop sticks might not be technically correct as a building material -but it is the most expensive thing that he has built so far.... And it might actually be right as a starter loco. From the construction point of view it is a pre-cut chassis, three Module 01, some laser cut kando drive bits and then dress up parts -plastered onto a box. "there is beauty in simplicity" and as far as simple gets (apart from the kando) that is about as simple as you get!!!
It is neither steam nor is it truly a "diesel" it has moving cranks etc to fascinate the curious. The box is big enough to have a goodly sized SLA with Rx ESC and a sound unit of some kind (for those that require one). It would be at home on the "shunting puzzle" layouts that would go with it.
Something to think about?
regards
ralph
Ralph,
By coincidence I happened to be reading "The History of Great Western A.E.C. Diesel Railcars" by Colin Judge when you posted your message.
I had just been looking at the preliminary chapter which covers all manner of wonderful contraptions, e.g. the Michelin railcar, the LMS "road-railer" bus (the one which was K's 4mm kit in the 1960s) , a "road-railer" lorry for shunting.
I was then thinking that a truly cheap to produce model might be be one of these items, in particular a Ford or Shefflex railcar set for a Colonel Stephens light railway (e.g. Hundred of Manhood and Selsey, Rother Valley, Shropshire & Montgomeryshire and so on). A simple box plastic (or resin) body with added resin casting details and a simple 4-wheel chassis and drive system.
Another alternative might be to persuade GRS to produce an RTR version of their GER (LNER Y6)0-4-0 tram engine (the kit is only 215GBP, so it should be possible to get RTR version for sub 600GBP).
The tram engine would provide a goods loco and the Shefflex set a passenger service.
More "food for thought".
John
Hello All
Regarding the above . Years ago I got into O gauge through the Lima 4F with a scale chassis kit . Jim produced a starter set of Y7 , Two wagons and a brake and they sold very well for him . With things developing as they are , If the body mouldings will take wider wheels then a gauge 3 chassis and detailing castings are surely the easy way in on the back of Thomas and Percy . Which will possibly come through the trade anyhow .
John
I see that Worsley Works already produce kits of the Ford railbus in 4mm, 7mm and G1 and the Shefflex railbus is also on the G1 list but not yet available. The Ford G1 kit is 80GBP for a single bus and 160 for the pair.
They could be asked if they would do a G3 version, if we were to order (say) three kits as a trial....anyone interested?
Their kits are brass etchings and we would probably need to cast the radiators, seats and other details ourselves which is no problem, as well as sourcing the motor/drive train. They are basically a box on wheels with a few bits stuck on, so should be quick and easy to assemble (yes, famous last words!).
The photos on their website are of the 4mm version at http://www.worsleyworks.co.uk/Image-Pages/Image_4mm_LightRailways.htm
If anyone is considering modelling a light railway, then these would make the ideal passenger train and Mike's forthcoming Manning Wardle kit would provide the ideal steam loco for the goods and any additional passenger services.
So, from the DVLR in the North, to the RVR (K&ESR) and HM&S in the South, to the S&MLR in the West and several other LRs in between, you have a prototype for a small layout (indoors or outdoors) and the stock to match.
John.
I suspect the demand for RTR amongst forum members is very small, so as somebody else said earlier on this topic, we should be careful not to assume we are typical of our target audience.
In my catalogue for WilliamsModels I have always had a note that I'd be pleased to quote for building RTR versions of my kits if anyone was interested. During a period when I was unemployed I quoted a ridiculously low price for this (£10 on one occasion) but to date not a single person has taken up the option - members want kits or parts for scratchbuilding.
Probably not so for the people we want to appeal to with this initiative.
Mike
N.B. Please remember that this is by definition a "forum" for discussion and not a platform to announce Gauge 3 Society policy. Postings by individuals and even by committee members do not necessarily represent the views of the Society.
Let me try again.
First I was not suggesting that Mike should be asked to produce anything for 600 pounds. I think he probably has enough on his plate with the live steam version of Venture, without asking him for more. What I was suggesting was that Mike would probably be 'open' to providing information (e.g. CAD) and possibly some laser cut parts for a Venture-like project. There is no reason why the electric version of this engine has to be built with expensive cast smoke boxes etc - a bit of plastic pipe might do. In other words, I'm sure a cost-reduced version should be more than possible. But at least you would have the basis of a scale model and a good head start on the required work. There is absolutely no reason this could not be a robust starter engine - if designed to be so.
However, IF we really are talking RTR here - there will always be the most expensive component to think about - e.g. the cost of actually building/painting the darn thing. Now I know there are low cost manufacturers in China/India etc - but once they've asked you the 'unit volume' required, it will probably be a very short conversation thereafter. So whatever design you end up selecting - this will always be an issue. It's why I think the notion of amateur "RTR" really does'nt (won't) fly. Frankly, lets just leave RTR to the 'Trade' to worry about.
However, if you are really serious about this (and it has been fun to toss it around on the forum - but that is not the same as actually "doing" something about it), the ONLY cost effective (e.g. low cost) way IMO to produce a RTR engine (of any design) is for a group of Members to batch build some engines for sale to prospective newbies.
Speaking personally, as someone who currently has half a dozen projects on the go, and more lurking under the bench, I don't think that I would be very well qualified to help with any DIY building programme. :D
Ian,
Sorry, I was being flippant when I suggested Mike might produce anything for 600GBP......perhaps I should have added one of those "smiley" things which I personally detest!
I agree that the best way forward (in the absence of being able to persuade GRS to maybe do a RTR Y6) would be for a "co-operative" approach which is why I mentioned the Worsley Works kits and asked if anyone is interested in investigating the possibilities.
Even so, if the items are constructed by a co-operative, I think they should still be marketed by the Society.
Why? Well I am retired and, personally, I wouldn't want the hassle of the accounting and tax aspects plus the insurance (product liability) of again being involved in business although I would be willing to cast some bits.
Regards,
John.
Since others have mentioned my name, may I say that if somebody wants to come up with a design I'd be very happy to give a cost price for parts which are within my abilities. I am not the only supplier and don't have a monopoly here, nor would I wish to do so.
It will take enthusiasm and time to produce an engine, so if just a little of both can be harnessed now by somebody doing a few sketches and a complete parts list, then we have a basis to discuss costs, methods and assembly. If we don't have the resources even for that stage, then I suggest its a non-starter.
If it helps to use a few standard Venture bits I'll gladly tell you what they actually cost me and a tank engine could probably be designed around them.
OR, what not just take Ian's approach and a group of members co-ordinated by the Society lobby somebody like: http://tower-models.com/ to up-scale their kit (sorry John, its a Pug!). With a price under £500 for Gauge 1, we might get a Gauge 3 version for £700? And with no effort or risk by us at all.
Mike
I will cheat and draft up some parts and costs for an LMS 1831 -as it looks like "Daddy" will have to anyway....
I will do this over the weekend. It should be ready for you by Sunday night.
regards
ralph
Thanks Ralph, but please remember this is for an RTR model, so a materials list with costs is a start, but it all needs to be cut, machined, assembled etc, all at commercial rates in order to give Joe Public an almost-RTR engine. This is not aimed at you or I.
Mike
I am not sure 1831 would make the ideal train set loco.
It is a bit of an "oddball" being an experimental loco employing the frames of a Midland 1F tank to produce a diesel hydraulic shunter.
An ugly brute which lasted only 6 years and described as only "moderately successful".
The body has quite a few rivets and louvres and the roof-mounted radiator is a large mass of pipework which could prove a challenge to reproduce as a casting.
Unfortunately, the only photo I have is accredited to Henry Casserley and the book is still within copyright period.
If anyone has access to "British Rail Fleet Survey Part 7 Diesel Shunters", there is a photo on page 4.
John.
http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxrailt.htm (http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxrailt.htm)
John...
Why is it you always seem to have to choose the most difficult options??? I was going to stick 14 radiators on the roof and then link them with "pipework".
We are using the 4mm scale drawing from PDH.
Excuse me I have been pre-empted!
regards
ralph
Well, I agree that the 'smileys' can be annoying (especially when abused) but it is sometimes very hard to post (or email) a comment and make sure that all of the recipients will understand its "tone". So I will admit to using them to make sure my remarks are taken in the way I intend them to be 'heard' and to try to remove any unintended sting. Anyway, back to RTR...
I still think that there is a large hole in the practicality of the whole RTR concept unless you have a radical way of undertaking the assembly work required. I'll repeat that I think there are simpler, much more effective ways of encouraging G3 uptake. I'll give two possible alternatives - I'm sure there are many, many more.
First – Find a low risk way of getting an existing manufacturer 'onside'
One of the best names in 16mm live steam is Roundhouse. They currently have locos that are dual gauge (45/32mm) but they tend to be narrow gauge in nature. Could RH be persuaded to produce a small industrial loco (G scale) that was dual gauge for 45mm AND 63.5mm?
If this could be achieved, then you would have the reach and leverage (e.g. reseller outlets, modelling press exposure, migration possibilities for existing 16mm modellers etc) that this relationship would bring. The risk to us is low. It starts with a chat with Roundhouse to see if they would be interested AND to explore what might entice them into our gauge in this fashion?
Second – Design a very low-cost (e.g. simple electric) G3 engine & create a cottage industry
If there was a very simple loco 'kit' available, that could be simply assembled, then maybe a secondary 'cottage industry' would emerge that could provide a finished RTR product. As a rule of thumb – I would say that the component costs should be one third of the RTR cost. I think that if the parts cost under 100 pounds, then there might be a few people willing to make a little 'hobby money' and build very low volumes of the loco (or to order) if they could be sold at about 300 pounds in a basic RTR format. But it would be essential to make sure the design was both "easy-build" and resulted in a good looking (e.g. attractive) end product. The 'kit' could of course, also be used by those who are happy to build their own kits. I think steam outline would be most popular, but why not share a 0-6-0 or 0-4-0 chassis with a simple steam & diesel outline?
I can see these 'sample' approaches as being achievable. I would see them as being the kind of 'small steps' in the right direction we need as the G3 market develops.
However (and I will resist using a smiley here) if anyone on this Forum really wants to get stuck in and bring out a G3 RTR Train Set, then I will most certainly be delighted to write the first review of it!
I agree it would be nice if an existing manufacturer could be persuaded to "come on side" but it has to be a low cost product.
Roundhouse is suggested as one possibility but I think (with one exception) all their products are live steam and over 1000GBP. Such a loco would probably not be suitable for indoor use and not safe for children.
The obvious option for a low cost loco from an established supplier is GRS. Their GER tram engine is supplied with RTR mechanism (a bogie from an American diesel re-gauged from 45mm) and the body consists of two principal components plus a reasonable amount of detail to be fitted internally and externally. John Witts has an electrically powered example (I have three which have been adapted with re-gauged Cheddar live steam chassis).
For those hooked on "Thomas" it will provide "Toby"! Toby was a J70 but visually there is little difference between the Y6 and J70, since the "works" are concealed by the tram skirts. The skirts are a slightly different profile, the condenser pipe follows a different track across the roof and the J70 loco is very slightly longer (from memory only a few inches).
This kit could be easily assembled as the "cottage industry" product.....I would suggest that, with practice, the assembly could be completed in an evening and the paint finish in a couple of hours (spread out to allow drying time between coats). I am quite willing to buy the electric version and build it to prove the point!
Another advantage of this prototype is that it has plenty of room to be fitted with batteries and radio control. The kit costs just 215GBP.
John.
Ok in the time remaining until I have to light the candles! I will post what I have got.
This is Matthews balsa and lollipop stick bodywork for his 1831 and has been constructed using UHU and the kitchen scissors, (he is currently 10).
(http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/1831pic1.jpg)
The GRS 1F chassis which it will sit on.
(http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/1831pic2.jpg)
Cambrian Models
NA16 Simplex Radiator 10 rqd £10.50p
NA23 Radiator Panel 2 rqd £1.90p
NA7 Rivet heads 2 rqd £3.00p
NA3 Coach door handles 1 rqd £1.75p
GRS
Fowler 1F chassis 1 rqd £7.50p
SLD 47 1F wheels 3 rqd £108.69p (!!!)
Alan H wheel num. 6114 is a possible?
As you can see the basic locomotive is easy enough for a 10 year old to manage to produce a reasonable and recognisable looking "impression" of it using 4 weeks pocket money and left over lollipop sticks from other kids... I think it is do-able in the "Cottage Industry" manner.
regards
ralph
Well, I started this topic under the board heading "Start a Project : Join a Project".
We have seen a lot of fascinating ideas and opinions expressed over the past few days but the point of the exercise is to get the project moving forward.
So I will now ask the question, who is prepared to JOIN a project to seek to produce (in whatever form and by whatever means) a RTR locomotive?
There is no fixed timescale and it is not the end of the debate so far as the Society's possible involvement is concerned but it is the point where those who are interested in contributing their time to the project join forces to produce a plan. This may consist of several options for nothing is ruled either in or out.
It may all come to nought but at least we will have tried!
John.
Just arrived back home (no Bishops Finger tonight I'm afraid!)
Had a thought whilst I was out, an extension of my previous Roundhouse/Low Cost Design ideas. It may sound pretty stupid to you (or not) but here goes anyway.
When you design your G3 RTR loco - why not make it a dual-gauge design? That is one capable of being built as a 63.5mm or a 45mm gauge engine? You'd have your RTR G3 loco but also be able to offer it to a much wider potential client base - that is 'G' (1:22.5) scale modellers who are looking for British outline stock to run on 45mm track. I'm not an expert on the 'G' scale modelling scene but I don't think there is so much choice in this area, being dominated by either 16mm NG stuff or US/Continental engines.
Just a thought.
I'll let you get on with your other ponderings now.
Regards,
IanT
Ian,
That is a useful suggestion and could be quite simple to put into practice.
GRS have used (and may still use) re-gauged "USA Trains" 45mm parts to power the Y6 tram loco and GWR AEC diesel railcar.
"USA Trains" offer a comprehensive spare parts service covering their entire range. In fact I had been researching their products and prepared the following before I went to bed last night but decided not to post it.
On the subject of components, GRS have used (and may still use) re-gauged drive parts from "USA Trains" a G-scale manufacturer. I believe the bogies for the GWR railcar and the chassis for the GER tram loco have come from that source.
I have just looked at USA Trains website and they offer a comprehensive spares service which covers most parts for their entire range of locos. As an example, a full set of 0-6-0 driving wheels is less than US$25 (that's 3 axles).
They offer motor/gearboxes for under US$20 and all the components are low cost.
The chassis for the 0-6-0T looks as though it might (with some modifications) be suitable to power a British prototype. What sprang to mind when I saw the tank is the USATC locos which ended up with the SR.
There are significant differences (e.g.saddle not side tanks, no outside Walschaerts valve gear) but items such as cab and chimney are available as spares and look to be very similar to the USATC locos.
John
http://www.usatrains.com/r20050parts.html
Returning to the present, the only problem with re-gauging is the huge space left outside the frames but with the Y6 that does not matter, since the skirts hide the "works".
The dual gauge alternative becomes simple : Use the untouched "USA Trains" power bogie for the 45mm version and the GRS re-gauged version for the G3 version.
With the GRS G3 kit costing 215GBP, it will require only a few extra Pounds (glue, paint and perhaps etched numberplates) to produce the finished, track-powered, loco.
Looking again at the G3 starter train set, add a couple of low cost wagons, 17 yards of track (an 8ft radius circle) and a low cost power supply and the whole set might be produced for c.700GBP (plus the cost of packaging).
The ultimate retail price would depend upon whether the "co-operative" is prepared to donate services and whether the Society is prepared to cover marketing, accounting and insurance aspects.
Regards,
John.
I'll go and find USA Trains John - I've not looked at them before.
When I said "design for dual gauge" - I had in mind a 0-6-0 inside cylinder setup (e.g. no external cylinders) where the only "parts" difference would be that you had two alternate axle lengths. The frame would be designed to be assembled for the appropriate gauge. In other words, it would not simply be a matter of moving the wheels on the axle. An engine would be built to a specific gauge with the frames at the correct width. But the difference in the parts required could be very small (e.g. two different lengths of axle and (perhaps) frame spacers).
I was also thinking about assembly methods earlier this morning.
Given the RTR nature of your "product" and that it would not be primarily designed for one-off DIY assembly - but rather small limited run productions - I think this would impact the design. For instance, wheel quartering would be by 'jig' rather than providing "ease of build" features such as 'squared' axle ends. I was wondering how you could (best) quickly assemble the frames and platework under these different build requirements - for instance if simple assembly jigs were to hand?
Anyway, I think I should shut up now and let you guys get on with it!
It looks like this is going to be a "Hoe and Handle" operation -who is going to do the woodwork and who is going to do the metal work... The multi gauge idea is better suited to an outside framed loco using square shafts with sheaves in the bearings -a typical Henshel und Sohn trick. The shaft had holes in it and the shipper simply moved the wheels apart until he got the correct gauge and pushed the bolt through the holes.
For small scale runs a set of jigs is going to have to be built.
It is interesting that the designs seem to be turning towards a box on a chassis!
regards
ralph
Ian,
Your suggestions are most welcome and, yes, jigs would be required for even small batch production.
I latched onto the GRS Y6 as the example simply because all the parts are available and ready to be screwed together.
An 0-6-0T (perhaps NER/LNER J72) would be preferable (even a larger tank such as a GN 4-4-2T /LNER C12) but complexity will increase component costs and require more assembly time and we have to get the body parts either built or as a kit of parts for us to assemble.
When (perhaps I should say if) a group does come together then clearly there are a lot of ideas to be kicked around before a decision is reached.
It all depends upon volunteers coming forward, otherwise nothing will happen.
Enjoy the Lake District.
Regards,
John.
Ralph,
The tram engine is my favourite solution since the parts are available "off the shelf".
Unfortunately (apart from early GW pannier tanks and some ancient Midland Kirtley tanks and similar mid-to-late 19th century locos from the other companies) I cannot for the moment think of any reasonably modern outside (or double-framed) British locos with straight running plates.
There were some very attractive MS&LR Sacre locos and Midland Kirtley locos (as well as GW Bulldogs and the like) which I wouldn't mind owning but the running plates are like a "roller coaster" and would be a devil to produce (Mike is working with the same challenge on the LNWR Cauliflower).
Even the straight plate locos have complicated springing details.
A Midland "Spinner" would be very nice and would possibly sell well (as might a "single" from any of the other companies).
Regards,
John.
Quote from: John Candy on Aug 28 2010 11:15
A Midland "Spinner" would be very nice and would possibly sell well (as might a "single" from any of the other companies).
Regards,
John.
It's an intriguing thought. The Triang 00 gauge Caledonian No 123 enjoyed considerable success many years ago; enough for Hornby to revive it recently for a while. It's a very attractive engine, especially in the Caledonian blue livery. It generally hauled light trains because of its relatively low tractive effort and limited adhesion, and it's not a mechanically complex as a model. It could appeal to the grandparent market that remembers it running in the sixties, and many more will have seen it in its various museum locations. It will soon have revived celebrity status when it goes on display in the new Glasgow Transport Museum - a good time to launch a model. I think I've talked myself into it!
But there must be a reason why the big manufacturers generally stay away from Scottish prototypes, and it has to be taken seriously.
Andrew
Ok,
Instead of saying what our starter loco should be -let us ask -what should it be capable of doing?
I think the general consensus is some form of 0-6-0 chassis -with side rods for visual interest.
What sits on top can either be a shell that is a steam or diesel or even electric outline.
It has to be able to take 2.4m radius curves. This gives us maximum axle spacing of 80mm with 1mm of central axle float or 90mm of axle spacing with 2mm of central axle float.
We only need to spring the central axle if we cut all the flanges to 2.3mm.
It will be powered by electric motor(s) and that power supply is either on board batteries or external DC supply. Internal PSU raises problems with space and shielding for Rx etc. External PSU raises the problems of wheel isolation and pickup problems.
Drive chain can be plastic rather than metal for ease of replacement. The motor(s) should be simple to find, easy to fit and inexpensive for replacement.
Is it better to assemble kits or design a specific item for use as a starter loco.
Once we have been through this sequence -we have to find something that fits.
regards
ralph
Ralph,
Should I take that as an offer to JOIN the project?
John.
YES!
regards
ralph
Great!
Thanks,
John.
Having consulted my catalogues, sat down with a large cup of coffee, several glasses of tea, cooked and eaten lunch, I now feel in a position to start work...
Starting from the basic premise that everything has to be bullet-proof and then some(!)
This has to use one central motor with a reduction gear box and the power has to be passed to other axles to remove any strain on the drive rods. Ideally the motor has to have 5 poles for optimum use using a variable PWM or PWAM DC supplies or 3 poles for a simple serial supply or fixed HF PWM DC supply. A candidate for the motor and gearbox could be the MFA 980D series. This would have to be mounted vertically or inclined as it is too long for the maximum axle spacing. This gives us a 6mm output shaft and if we use 6mm axles then we have a wide choice of gears to play with. The 24 Volt version is possibly the better. The 24 Volt version also has a rear 10mm extension shaft that a flywheel could be grafted onto. If the flywheel was fitted then it would have to be mounted vertically or there would be severe precessional problems whilst cornering...
At 20 Watts throughput it is, (for me), a border line case (!) whether to force cool the motor casing or use a clip on external finned heat sink to the case and use conductive cream. The finned heat sink is the simplest and quietest -but it is not the most efficient in an enclosed environment. It might be possible to use the "Magnus Effect" off the spinning flywheel fitted to a 24 Volt motor to draw air over the fins -or simply to carve slots to produce a fan.
I would also look at force cooling the on board electronics for the on-board PSU. Choices at the 24Volt range are the MACH and the Syren. I have never used a MACH but I have two Syren units - which have regeneration for prolonging battery life.
Time for more tea!
regards
ralph
Hello All
For a quick ready to run loco , How about the tram engines successor the diesel tram engine A.K.A. The Drewery 04 with small window cab and side skirts .
Resin bonnet , Etched Cab etc and also I believe part of the Fat Controllers fleet on the Isle of Sodor known as Mavis
John
Flashback to December 2009
http://lakes-pages.com/gauge3.co.uk/G3Forum/index.php?topic=159.msg934#msg934
At that stage nobody took me up on the suggestion / offer but perhaps it is worthy of further consideration?
The Wisbech & Upwell 1952 version of the Drewry would certainly disguise the dual gauge option, in the same way that the GRS kit of the Y6 would do for the steam predecessor.
John.
Looking at the Wild Swan "Wisbech & Upwell Tramway" booklet today re. the Tram option, I had the same thought re. the class 04, but would suggest that the 63.5 gauge version's wheels, rods, etc. are accurately represented so could be used without skirts.
Derek.
I just went back to read John Candy's posting which started this discussion. He was proposing an R-T-R "train set" to bring people into the hobby. It seems to me that this proposal is a non-starter for two reasons:
- To be priced at a realistic level, the train set will need to be manufactured in commercially viable volumes, probably in China, and the market does not seem to be anywhere near large enough for this to happen.
- Gauge 3 enthusiasts, and presumably those entering the hobby, tend to be passionate about particular railways and have no interest in other railways. This would make it impossible to select a prototype which the majority of members would want to buy.
I think the solution is to manufacture a generic 0-6-0 chassis kit for battery powered radio control. Such a kit would consist of frames, sidebars, wheels, gearbox, motor, battery pack holder, charging socket, controller, 2.4GHz receiver and (okay, I know I have a commercial interest) a soundcard. The kit would be screw together with no soldering and would make extensive use of commercial components. A simple cam would be needed on one axle so that an accurate chuff sound could be achieved on steam versions.
Once such a chassis existed then it would be probably be commercially attractive for people like GRS to produce one piece, resin body kits for a variety of locos which modellers can then kit bash and detail. In G Scale, GRS already do this using LGB and American R-T-R chassis. Alternatively, members could make their own bodywork using their chioce of material.
I have a lot of experience of this type of chassis and would be happy to design and cost a kit if there is any interest.
Regards
Peter
Hmmm...
Peter,
I do seem to remember uploading an couple of articles to IanT about the use of modular systems to ease the construction of model locomotives(!)
What I had in mind as well, was a modular chassis that would accept a number of bodies that could be bolted on top. Rather in the same manner that my son changes his bodies on his 1/10 scale R/C car, a builder would buy a chassis and then fabricate the top or TOPS... ::) I think the first thing to do is to examine what locomotives it might be possible to construct. The suggestions so far are rectangular "boxes" the dimensions of other locos that we might have to squeeze in bits with might be a good experiment to start with...
In short which locomotives could we not build?
regards
ralph
OK here is rough PNG for you to play with.
(http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/chassis1.png)
regards
ralph
Quote from: Derek King on Aug 29 2010 23:57
Looking at the Wild Swan "Wisbech & Upwell Tramway" booklet today re. the Tram option, I had the same thought re. the class 04, but would suggest that the 63.5 gauge version's wheels, rods, etc. are accurately represented so could be used without skirts.
Derek.
For cheap & cheerful, my first loco attempt is depicted in the members photo gallery. It is a tramway skirted freelance Hudswell Clarke diesel and is a perfect companion to my Y6, both originate from GRS and have that Wisbech & Upwell ambiance. Of course my grandson calls them Toby & Mavis. I made the diesel with skirts to make tramway operation look realistic but also it was a convenience to cover up the wheels of the regauged USA Trains motor bogie.
R/C is installed and 11 x AA NiMH cells. Of course it will not satisfy the scale purists but it is the motive power and functionality that is important here. This little loco provides most useful shunting horsepower and being "short" it does not take up a lot of space on a G3 indoor layout. It also goes around tight curves in the track.
For a starter set idea has anybody seen Mark P's (Blackgang) regauged Thomas and Annie/Clarabel set operate? Rather than launch into making locos from scratch how about the idea of providing a regauged commercial set as an option to getting into Gauge 3? After all it's just a matter of re-engineering the axles.
For starter and entry level we oldies have grandkids and this should be the appeal to propagate the hobby into the future. The pleasure and smiles on their little faces makes it all worthwhile when they spot things they recognise.
They do not see rivets and wheelbases, liveries and periods, they see what they recognise and if it moves they like it. If they can control it themselves they like it even better!
Hope I have not been too heretical.
Happy BH Monday
Dave 454
Yes like Dave, one of my initial thoughts on this subject was that a simple RTR (or screw together) chassis for Thomas would be the cheapest "starter" option, but John didn't seem keen on this toy market, so didn't raise it.
The advantage of this way in, would be that if the wheelbase proved to be common to other locos then it would also be a good introduction to scratchbuilding your own body, or as has already been said, GRS (or others) may be encouraged to produce resin bodies to fit.
Another option would be to produce a 0-4-0 chassis to fit the GRS Peckett to encourage them to continue to produce the body parts for this engine (and other bodies to suit??). Again it would be also useful for those wanting to scratch build there own small shunter.
But Gents, can we please also not forget those who prefer 2-rail pick-up and ensure that the wheels are supplied insulated. There must be a market out there for this method of operation as GRS produce all the engines this way!
Derek.
The current dilemma seems to be "toy" or scale model.
The toy will appeal to children and perhaps beginners in model railways, as opposed to converts from other gauges.
As has been pointed out, true railway enthusiasts / modellers generally have an allegiance to one particular railway or period, so "one size fits all" will not work.
We need to produce something which will appeal to the widest possible audience.
Whereas a "toy" will not appeal to the "scale convert" or seasoned modeller, a scale model would be acceptable to the "toy" market.
I am still of the opinion that the GRS Y6 with the simple USA Trains (45mm or G3 drive) is the cheapest/easiest option and will appeal to the "toy" market as "Toby".
Similarly, the Drewry 204HP 0-6-0DM has similar attractions : Skirts to disguise a simplified drive arrangement for a "cheap" version for the "toy" market or a scale version with exposed 0-6-0 motion for the "serious" market.
John.
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/richpix/tset1.jpg)
Here's my train set
Richard,
Very nice!
How many can you turn out RTR in a week?
Only joking!!
Regards,
John.
The current enthusiasm for "Thomas" (and Friends) is a double-edged sword and I think we need to be careful.
While it provides a convenient means of producing a cheap train, we don't want our gauge/scale to be seen by serious modellers as the preserve of "cranks" and our trains as mere toys!
The Society's policy is to attract serious modellers from smaller scales (or even downsizing from larger scales) to convert to G3 (or at least take an interest). They need to be modellers in the true sense and not "buy and run" types, since we have no RTR trains to offer them!
Any serious modeller may well be thinking, "Why take a non-prototypical toy loco and convert it to run on scale track : May just as well leave it to run on non-prototypical 45mm track".
Yes, we want to attract younger people but, seriously, small kids are not going to be buying G3 kits and joining the Society. Yes, maybe "Daddy" will buy them a "Thomas" trainset but (for 99+%?) that will be as far as it goes. For most, the novelty will soon wear off and the trainset will go in the cupboard and other interests (the latest "Wii" or "Playstation" game) will take over.
Probably not going to be a popular view with some members and not necessarily one which I hold but we need to be careful how we project ourselves.
A lot of effort is put into attracting people into G3 and those efforts can easily be destroyed by an ill-considered action.
Even a fleeting impression of G3 as a "toy" scale could, in my view, do untold harm.
Let me draw a parallel with a personal experience.
About 30 years ago, I made my one and only visit to the Nene Valley Railway.
Arrived to find all the locos wearing "faces" and locos being "raced" against each other through the platform roads (God knows what damage all the violent wheelslip did to the connecting rods and main bearings and the emergency stops and sliding to the wheels).
Needless to say I took no photos and have never returned : My wife thinks of it to this day as the place that has "trains with the silly faces".
Probably now have poured fuel on the fire so shall sit back and watch the blaze!!
Can't disagree John. In my opinion the most suitable loco would be a small tank engine of which lots were built, widely distributed in the UK and long-lived. Region, colour, steam or diesel doesn't really matter and Richard.T's set would be very suitable.
Perhaps testing the water could be for Richard to make / have made, a dozen to sell RTR and see what interest they generate?
Mike
I would have thought that Thomas was a commercial non-starter because Bachmann have produced one in gauge 1 which is much to close in size to justify a Gauge 3 competitor in the toy market.
The only way you would stand a chance is to add chuffs and whistles, doors closing at start, guards whistle blowing, working lights, battery power, smoke, speech and all the other things which will appeal to our grandchildren.
None of which is any use to us....
Peter
Richard,
Pardon my curiosity. What is the power train(!) and motor for your little diesel loco? The last time I saw you, there was an 0-4-0 chassis with a central motor and chain drives to the two axles -is it that one?
regards
ralph
If we were to go for a 204HP Gardner-engined BR shunter with a wheelbase of 4ft 6ins + 4ft 6ins that immediately gives the basis for three accurate models. The BR-built 03, the Drewry-built 04 and the Hunslet 05 (the wheel diameter varied between these classes but 3ft 7ins would sit comfortably under all three).
Those Society members hooked on the IOW as a prototype will know that an 05 went to the IOW when steam was withdrawn, so that should be at least two customers for the kit!
The Hunslet is very "angular" in design when compared with the 03 and 04, which are a bit more "curvaceous".
A brass fold-up cab, a brass running plate (reinforced with a square brass valance) with fold-down buffer beams and steps plus a fold-up brass bonnet (hood in US terminology) and a cast radiator/ front end would take care of the main body structure. Detailing (cast and / or turned) can then be added and there isn't an awful lot .... buffers, draw hook, air tanks, horn, grab rails, brake pipes and lights are the most prominent features.
How much might the brass components cost (Richard, you have your Ruston to use as a measuring stick)?
Mike, how much for the laser cut frames, coupling rods, fly cranks?
Ralph, what do you think a drive train would cost using a rugged but cheapish motor rated at up to 18 volts plus suitably rugged gearing?
Can we source wheels in the 3ft 4in to 3ft 7in range (the final batch of Hunslets had 3ft 9ins and were slightly larger)?
Since this is about as basic as one can get for an 0-6-0, the cost should be a useful guide as to what is (or isn't) affordable.
John you make it sound so easy,
You first need to find someone to design and produce the artwork for the brass/nickel components - one who has designed kits previously - it is definately a skill not to be underestimated - that would set you back a few hundred £s
The cost of producing a phototool and test etch would be typically £80-£100 depending on the sheet size, you may very well need two tools for a 0-6-0 diesel.
As far as detailing is concerned, I suspect there are no parts available commercially so some patternmaking would be in order, you could commission some patterns from a professional -
very expensive, or make them yourself which is what I do. Very time consuming and you will need prototype info - detail drawings, photos, climbing over the real thing preferably.
Some of the castings could be in white metal so a centrifugal mould ( or two ) at £30+ each, or if you decide to have some lost wax castings ( buffers etc ) in brass or n/s, a mould for each of the waxes at £20+ per sprue. a decent motor and gearset ( not model boat parts ) approx £50+.
I'm not too sure about the need for laser cut steel frames and rods, whereas it would be included as part of the artwork and maybe produced in nickel silver ( being much stiffer than brass )
also the advantage of being absolutely certain that everything lines up with the body parts.
Wheels would be available from the usual suspects presuming there are suitable castings available to be machined - I've not checked to see if Slater's make anything suitable for GRS
Their drivers are typically just under £40 per axle, cast and machined versions a bit cheaper.
And then you need to invest in some stock to put the kit together and build a few - more of a time penalty for most of us or a big cost penalty if you can find someone to build them for less than a tenner an hour.
I think the time and effort involved for an individual to consider doing this would be a non starter, mainly because the market it far too small, you would have little chance of recouping your investment.
Only because I wanted these parts have I produced what I have, and the only reason that has been practical is because of the help of various people in the model trade for who I have provided patternmaking and various other jobs for in return for services rendered.
Judging by everyones differing views regarding their favourite prototypes and "wish lists"
a commitee style project I fear would be even more difficult - what ever happened to "the buffer stop project" ?
Regards
Richard
QuotePardon my curiosity. What is the power train(!) and motor for your little diesel loco? The last time I saw you, there was an 0-4-0 chassis with a central motor and chain drives to the two axles -is it that one?
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/richpix/rustdrive2.jpg)
Ralph, the power train is a more suitable chain drive setup, as per the prototype. A high quality motor gearbox assembly from Ron Chaplin driving a 3/16 intermediate shaft which has mounted Delrin sprockets and chain, driving standard 1/4 square ended axles with driving wheels from Walsall Model Industries rim insulated on one side.
The motor assy and Delrin chain is perfectly capable of pulling a few wagons just like the prototype 48DS ( which at 8tons had its limitations - I know I have driven one )
You could just drive one axle with a motor gearbox but I suspect it would be a disappointment.
Regards
Richard
Richard,
Thank you for the outline of the costs involved.
The CAD drawing for the etching and / or laser cutting is (I believe) something which Mike has said he may be willing to assist with (correct me if I am wrong Mike).
Pattern-making is something which I regularly do (several of Mike's recent van releases employ my patterns) and I undertake both whitemetal and resin casting of most items for my wagons. I could handle castings such as the radiator / front end section and the air tanks. The buffers would need to be brass/steel but GRS 08 buffers would probably be suitable.
The wheels are likely to be the major cost and I have yet to check to see whether Slaters make any for GRS which may be suitable (the only possible candidate is the GWR 1361 class 0-6-0 saddle tank).
I know it won't be simple but then it wouldn't be much fun.
Don't anticipate "mass production", perhaps the wrong impression has been given by the RTR tag : Just a steady stream gauged to meet demand from the discerning customer.
They could be sold via Ebay, the Society's website and through the Society's exhibition stand.
The marketing and overall co-ordination would have to be through the Society.
I am retired and don't want the complications of business accounting, tax and NI contribution hassles.
Retired to get away from all that!
Regards,
John
Richard,
You asked about the buffer stop.
I should have added that John Witts has that matter in hand and produced a very nice pre-production sample at the Dereham exhibition.
His target price is under 40 GBP which was the cost of the sample.
He is looking to find a supplier able to provide a more competitive price.
John.
Not a very good image but it is a blow up of a very small section of a photo of the Dereham stand.
John,
The Brandbright RSA 37 comes in at 47mm (3'6") and they will supply it as wheels and axles. The axle shaft is 6.35mm however...
If you examine the PNG above then an 0-6-0 chassis roughs out to:
Barndbright RSA 37 £26.22p (2 sets of wheels and axles -they supply in pairs of course -so 3 sets for 2 chassis)
MFA 980D MOTOR AND GEARBOX £28.68p 24 Volt motor version, 38:1 reduction, RE-385 5 pole motor
380 series motor heat sink £3.99p Sorry but I do think a heat sink is needed!
Synchroflex 6mm 16T timing cogs £11.48p (4 cogs) -will need drilling to size (supplied with pilots).
Timing belts £7.00p (2 belts)
Bevel gear mod 1 B1.0 101H30 £X.XXp (2 gears rqd) Muffet Gears are asleep until 9 am tomorrow!
Cost excluding bevel gears £77.37p
That is the cost for just 1 chassis ensemble -once we hit 6 then the prices drop and we can get a 10% discount!
There will have to be a U frame fabricated to hold the motor and gearbox inline with the axle that straddles it. This could either be folded or fabricated from 2mm sheet steel.
Nothing major is anticipated other than the boring (!) job of taking all the gears out to 6.35mm. I would use a Slocombe and then hand ream it to size -but I am somewhat "quaintly olde fashioned" in that regard...
regards
ralph
Richard,
Yes, that is the one I saw by your tea cup at the NEC last year.
I am going to use toothed belts -exactly the same as a good old fashioned line printer!!!
regards
ralph
Thanks Ralph,
Those look to be encouraging figures (especially dispensing with the expensive Slaters wheels).
Have been looking again at the USA Trains spares list for their steam "dockside" loco and the whhels look to be about the right size for an 05 and have a similar number of spokes and similar balance weights, so that could be a possible source of even cheaper metal wheels and axles.
Regards,
John.
No Ralph, the one you saw had enormouse roller chain from our friends at Technobots and an oversized Maxon motor with a two stage gearbox.
An interesting first prototype but unneccesarily powerful and expensive.
Regards
Richard
One of the problems with Brandbrights wheels are that they are not insulated, this rather precludes them from two rail pick-up.
Also being coach wheels the drive would rely on the push fit onto the axle, you would need to disassemble them to fit through the bearings and timing pulleys, which won't help the cause.
Your design suggests R/C and battery power, if you need to fit a heat sink to the motor, it implies the efficiency of your drive system is very poor or your speed controller very inefficient.
I dont think I have come across modern motors overheating in loco's, considering the light loads most of them are hauling. Even a pacific pulling 20 bogie coaches around a garden railway would have a motor sized to suit the duty.
I would state here that my concept is of a TRACK POWERED loco with the OPTION of battery/radio control.
I have since looked at the Brandbright catalogue and see that the RSA37 is a solid disc coach wheel, whereas the BR 0-6-0DM shunters had spoked wheels. The fact that Richard has pointed out that Brandbright wheels are non-insulated does rather rule them out.
I have hopes that the USA Trains wheels may be suitable since they are a fraction of the cost of Slaters (or cast iron machined wheels).
John.
Well lets ask a question.
Can we stick a brass "hub cap" over the solid steel wheel to give you your spokes?
(http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/metrovickpic37.jpg)
Brandbright have always supplied me with just wheels and axles for fitting gears with -no problem has been experienced from me on that score
(http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/smotorpic32.jpg)
I was going to retain the wheels and then use a sabot (probably of Nylon) to hold the wheel to the axle. I pin/glue/crunch/whatever the sabot to the wheel and the sabot to the axle, (which is a 6mm dia rod), this gives me an insulating layer between the axle and the wheel. But everything is held in position whilst in motion.
(http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/metrovickpic39.jpg)
USA Trains might not be a suitable source as I would imagine that they conform to the NMRA Gauge 1 profile... (ugh!)
The sabot in this case is Aluminium -rather than Nylon -but the principle is the same...
John -if the design is for a self powered chassis then it makes better economic sense. If the builder requires a track powered version then we don't fit the other parts -but the space and capability are there for both options in the one...
Richard -call it over kill if you like -but I have always cooled my motors and electronics. Maybe I am still not yet used to your cold wet Northern Hemisphere climate!!! I am often accused, (quite rightly I think), of using motors that are too big and power electronics that are too highly rated for the job. My defence is that they haven't burnt out yet!!!
regards
ralph
I think we have to be clear about producing and selling any relatively high value hobby product.
All of the traders in any scale in the model railway business will not be able to sell poor quality or amateurish products, railway modelers are not that gullible.
They are not going to spend their hard earned disposable income on somebody elses poor excuses for scale models or parts ( I presume we are trying to make scale models ? )
If you care to look at the vast amount of model railway items available, including Gauge 3 products, without exception, the manufacturers have invested a lot of time, skill and money to produce something that fits the bill, and unfortunately we have to pay for that.
The only alternative is to make it yourself or pay someone to make it for you.
Regards
Richard
I have to agree with Richard that, if we are to proceed, we need to use good quality parts and produce as near a scale model as possible within budget constraints.
If we can used off the shelf parts (such as "USA Trains" wheels and drive trains) which are low cost then that is a way of reducing the cost. The USA Trains are G scale and presumably compatible with Bachmann and the like. Mark Pretious retained the G scale wheels on his Thomas conversion without any problems (it ran around the Ampthill track for long periods and that includes plenty of turnouts and double slips).
Proper spoked wheels with beefy axles are a necessity and, if all else fails, the Slaters 1361 class wheels are about the right size, if expensive.
Apart from the cab roof which is lightly curved and a very slight curve to the bonnet top, all the main body parts of the 05 are either straight or angled so a fold-up construction is possible and if well-designed, with accurate tabs and fold lines, should go together easily and quickly.
This is proposed as a low volume production able to be assembled by a co-operative of volunteer members and not requiring a Chinese factory to churn them out in their thousands.
I don't envisage this finding its way onto the shelves of "Toys-R-Us" although it may be that GRS or another large-scale retailer might be tempted to stock it (even to offer it in kit form for the experienced modeller).
For this to happen it needs to be accurate, for as Richard has said, modellers are not going to be "fobbed off" with a poor compromise.
I am going start another Poll, "Would you buy an 0-6-0 diesel shunter?" with the options of kit or RTR (and a price indication).
Regards,
John.
If wheels are a sticking point it may be worth asking a specialist to turn up a set from steel blanks, and fit insulated bushes. Yes, I believe they should be spoked, but it would get around the problem and they'd be strong, accurate and to our profile. It would be embarassing if the G3S marketed wheels which did not conform to their own standards. I could recommend such a specialist - in fact John met one of his associates a couple of weeks back.
As for etching artwork. Yes, I'd be happy to do some, but it is sounding more like a complete etched kit to me, including as Richard says the chassis (which could still be compensated or sprung). That would take some time and is more than the small fabrications (like the cab) that I envisaged.
A pair of laser cut frames? Depends on the complexity (machine time), but I'd budget for £20 the pair and you may have some change.
Mike
Just occurred to me to see what is being produced in the smaller scales and the Judith Edge range came to mind, since all manner of steam and small diesel shunters are in the range.
This is the Hunslet "05" kit.... http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/judithedge/kit/129
Some while ago (when we were discussing the diesel kit in conjunction with a previous "Poll") "Traininvain" (Ian Harper) came up with a quote to "upscale" the Judith Edge LMS 350HP shunter.
This is what I said at the time :-
Forum Member 'traininvain' (Society member No.426) obtained a quote from Judith Edge for a kit (body only) based on the LMS Hawthorn Leslie/EE design for a 350HP 0-6-0 diesel electric.
The etched brass body was quoted at 433GBP (that is for etched parts only).
The detail castings, chassis, wheels, etc. would be extra (and the wheels might have to be specially commissioned since they are not same diameter as the BR 08 wheels made by Slaters).
Of the 433GBP, the cost of producing the etching tool was 259GBP and this would be spread across a production batch, bringing down the unit cost.
If 6 Society members were to sign up to the project, the unit cost for body etchings would be circa 220GBP.
How much the wheels, castings,etc. would cost is not known.
Whether the proposed 22thou brass would be thick enough to provide sufficient 'relief' to the detailing is another matter to be examined, since the Judith Edge artwork was designed for 7mm scale.
This current proposal might be worth pursuing along those lines.
John.
P.S. Also from the JE range http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/judithedge/kit/137
the LMS 1932 Hunslet 150HP 0-6-0 No.7051 (this one I would buy).
John writes: I am going start another Poll, "Would you buy an 0-6-0 diesel shunter?" with the options of kit or RTR (and a price indication).
I think the question really is, who would buy an 0-6-0 diesel shunter as part of a starter kit? As I have said before, and Mike also noted, we are not necessarily representative of our target audience - but yes, a little shunter I am sure would be delightful. (Actually now I will go against my sentiments above and say I would buy one.)
However, what I would not buy is anything that needed bits of brass folding, any soldering whatsoever. It really needs to be plug-and-play to encourage the new adopters to get out there and start playing trains out of the box.
I personally would love a little Thomas or Toby, as I live in Emneth and the Wisbech & Upwell tramway used to practically run past my front door.
One final note: one very good reason not to emulate "Thomas" or an associated engine - the licensing deal!
Wilbert Awdry wrote his last 13 "Thomas" books from his study at the Old Vicarage in Emneth, where I currently live. When his descendants wanted to commission a small window in St Edmund's Church next door, they were prevented from doing so, by, I believe, Mattel, who at that time held the licensing rights to the brand and wanted to be paid for the use of the loco's image. The window did eventually go ahead however.
Actually the family makes little if any revenue from the original stories and Wilbert only wrote them for fun in the first instance and was just happy to see them in print. So Bachmann would have paid a significant amount of money to be granted a manufacturing licence, but the society has not! So my advice is stay away or at the very least – proceed with great care, if you choose to go down this road.
Markie
Markie,
Rest assured, I have not lost sight of my original proposal to end up with a starter set.
The most difficult (and expensive) component to source is going to be the loco.
It needs to appeal to a wide range of tastes to be viable and the option to buy as a kit or RTR will extend that appeal. Those who want RTR would recieve an assembled, painted, RTR loco.
A "Toby" tram can be produced from the GRS Y6 kit which is very easy to assemble (it is powered by a modified "USA Trains" bogie which has been re-gauged by GRS). Wouldn't try to sell it as Toby but as a GER tram loco, leaving the buyer to make their own connection with the Thomas character.
It is my preferred option to produce the RTR loco at low cost (kit is just 219GBP) but it does not seem to be a popular choice judging by the reaction here. They could be built up and painted in just a few hours.
Regards,
John.
John,
Y6 doesn't look like an engine to some people, hence the interest in 04, 05 etc.
Mike
Mike,
I do agree but the problem at the moment is that hardly anyone has offered to assist with a complete new kit (and a brass kit will take rather more skill and time to assemble than a resin kit).
Plenty know what they would like but it requires a commitment to participate before anything actually gets done!
The fact is that (at the end of the day) the target customers are not the members of this forum although it would be nice if they were to buy one.
At the moment the early LMS 150HP DM shunter scaled up from a Judith Edge kit looks an attractive proposition (it is a Hunslet but a little simpler in design than the 05) particularly as IanH has provided a guide to probable cost with his enquiry about the LMS 350HP DE kit.
John.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or unsupportive John, but remind he why that is better than the small diesel Richard has already scaled up?
Seems to me that Richard's kit would be much easier and safer because he's already gone through the design heartache, and he's kindly taken much of the cost himself (thanks Richard!) They are both small etched brass diesels, aren't they?
It would just need somebody - maybe this "cottage industry" that's been mentioned here - to assemble them. If not, maybe one of the professionals who advertise kit building would quote for doing a batch.
That, at least, would give a budgettory figure to work to, safe in the knowledge that it works.
Mike
Mike,
I have asbsolutely no objection to Richard producing a batch of locos, it's just that I wasn't aware he had offered.
The only disadvantage of such a small loco is that it has no potential for battery or radio control and Richard has stated that it could only haul a couple of wagons.
I am personally not anxious to produce anything if someone else will do it but if necessary I would cast some parts for a larger diesel.
Regards,
John.
"I wasn't aware he had offered". He hasn't . . . yet!
What would a "batch" consist of - 6 locos ?
Even with such a small loco I suspect the costs to aquire all parts for six complete locos would be somewhere in the region of £1500, remember that is just for parts, not for the assembly.
I certainly wouldn't be prepared to invest that on the offchance I might sell them. The model railway hobby is full of "prospective customers" who never come up with the money. I have experienced this myself with a range of G1 kits in the past - so maybe I am a little cynical.
You would have to find some charitable fellow to assemble them for next to nothing - judging by the percived final selling price, I'm too expensive.
The other point mentioned regarding R/C, I have a prototype 48DS with 10 1700ma NmHi cells in the bonnet with a speed controller and 2.4ghz receiver within the loco with cab clear. So it can be done if you try.
Regarding the haulage capability - I have as yet not tried to stall one with a number of wagons - I shall have a go when I've finished the G1 class 14 I'm busy with at the moment
( how about a class 14 in G3 ? )
Regards
Richard
The reason I went for the Hawthorn Leslie was that it was the closest I could get from Judith Edge to an 08 and the reason I went to Judith Edge to get a quote was because they use CAD to produce their etch artwork.
If anyone is interested in an 08 then they may be an alternative route from another supplier - though the etches are not produced via CAD. For what it's worth, the reason I want an 08 is because it would do as a station pilot and as a shunter.
I know there's an 08 available from another supplier but there are a number of documented issues with this and, besides, as a matter of personal taste, I don't like resin bodied locos.
I some how seem to have missed this thread - until now!
I have also been looking at a suitable starter loco and have been dabbling with Chris Barrons Polar Bear which is a scale model of a very small Bagnall - the original was 6'x11' so the G3 model is about 1:10 and will almost go in a shoe box
It is cute - no other way to describe it - and the designer tells me that he sells more plans of it than all his other locos put together so it seems to impress others as well.
The original is in the Amberly museum
Putting my money where my mouth is I am building two - might do three.
But as I have less than a hundred more months to annoy you chaps I am looking for as many shortcuts as I can. Time is of the essence!
So far the chap who cuts the frames (£19 a pair) has suggested that he can do all the chassis platework for about £75 and I am hoping that he will be able to do ALL the platework for around £120. The motion would be a little extra as the components are too small for his equipment so they would have to go elsewhere.
A full set of castings is available for around £130 but these need machining of course albeit they could be done on the smallest lathe. However the machining could be very substantially reduced if all the casting were lost wax and not sand. This would reduce the machining to careful drilling and filing.
Modern 3D software has a facility which enables plate to be cut with tabs and slots along the lines of the old hornby kit of old so etching is not needed except for some detail like cab windows.
Then we get to the boiler. I have bought a boiler set for less than £100 with flanged plates to the drawing. It is a simple marine type with 5 or 6 tubes. A single flue radiant gas boiler would probably cost half that in material terms and would be very simple to build.
An electric version would simply involve mounting a suitable motor within the boiler space. But I dont know about that sort of stuff.
If we went down the lost wax route we would need patterns and they would come from a 3D model and a 'printed' pattern in ABS.
The modelling cost might be in the order of £2-300 and the printing about £30 a unit. A mould would then cost another £40 or so and after that the price depends on how many you have. Simplst!
The result would - sorry, will - be a locomotive built to be an exact representaion of the original without qualification. However if you just take the chassis it could be built up into almost any small NG type. With a superstructure made of styrene, drainpipe and resin
(No, I am not sneering - look at www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com - and they work from ORIGINAL drawings)
There is another issue that really needs addressing if we are to find commercial acceptance for G3 - the scale. Here we do 1:22.588, In america it is 1:20.37 (or is it 2) and on the continent its 1:20. And the gauge.... well you know what I mean.
By the way - check out what French modellers do in 1:20 -
www.usinages.com/040-d-vapeur-vive-t9391.html (http://www.usinages.com/040-d-vapeur-vive-t9391.html)
Another thing is track. Modern brass and plastic track is very pretty but expensive. Both young Frank and Bassett Lowke (or was it Bonds) did pretty well with hollow formed track and tabbed sleepers. Surely the same thing in stainless with pressed spacers would be cheap to produce (and flog profitably.) and be acceptable in the garden layout
If anyone is interested in Polar Bear I would be pleased to discuss it.
and
Hi Chris,
Well to be honest - I thought Polar Bear was a narrow gauge engine - in that although it runs on 2 1/2" gauge track, it's not built to a scale of 13.5mm. Gauge '3' is essentially standard gauge in nature.
With regards to scale - we normally use 13.5mm (or sometimes 17/32nds) when converting measurements but 1:22.6 when describing the scale. They are not exactly the same but the differece is very small in practice. Some pre-war G3 models were built to 1/2" (12.7mm) scale but it is not generally used in G3 these days.
With respect to 1:20.3 this is essentially a US form of G-scale, as it translates to 3 foot gauge when used with 45mm track. LGB use 1:22.5 which is correct for metre gauge on 45mm. Clearly we model standard gauge engines on 2 1/2" track (which is 63.5mm) so need to use a scale of 13.5mm (or 1:22.6). So whilst we are pretty much the exact same scale as LGB 'G' we use standard gauge track rather than metre gauge.
As Continental standard gauge is also (generally) 4' 8.5" - anyone who was modeling European standard gauge would also have to use 13.5mm (or 1:22.6) if they want a scale model to run on 63.5mm track, although the loading gauge would be larger. So the French 1:20 scale cannot be standard gauge if it's running on 63.5mm track.
There does seems to be a lot of confusion between "scale" and "gauge". There are also 'degrees' of scale in other gauges (fine/coarse 32mm, 00, H0, P4, EM etc) - but in G3 we are very fortunate that our scale and gauge combination are pretty accurate and therefore easy to define.
Regards,
Ian T
The French 1/20 live steam runs on either 70mm or 72mm track. Cest la difference.
Peter
I've never heard of the French 70/72mm gauge before Peter.
I had simply assumed it was another 45mm NG variant, as this would work out at 900mm in full size, which I think was used in real life - although I'm no expert on Continental NG working and all its different flavours
IanT
Gentlemen - I think you have made my point.
If you were an international commercial toy company would you invest in HO/00 which is a wordwide standard. 0 gauge or gauge 1 which are also world wide standards - or gauge 3 with no adherents in Europe at all, one standard in America which has been adjusted to use commercially available track - or the UK with more variations than one can shake a stick at.
Still - not to worry. They arent investing in our market place and we dont have to save up to buy the products they arent producing.
But - dont winge if there are no RTR trainsets available for G3/G scale/72mm or whatever
However, finally, for the avoidance of doubt Polar bear is a genuine person pulling SCALE Bagnall modelled to a scale of approximately 1:10 and it runs on 63.5 gauge track.
Now that I have left the Gauge '3' Society and after Saturday 30th of October 2010 -this forum... When I first found G3 in the UK it was at the AGM of the 16mmngm at Stoneleigh and it it was Robin Saxton's stand that I found it at. I measured the gauge with my index finger and said "This is Spur II -sorry Gauge 3?" Not being english and spending a lot of my time in Berne I called it by what I knew it as. I knew people who built Spur II models and belonged to Spur II Gruppe from my time in Berne. What I was not prepared for was the demarcation of the "G3" and the "N2.5GA". The demarcation is that G3 pull carriages and wagons and that N2.5GA pull people.
Another point of demarcation is perception. It has to be a steam engine -or a steam outline engine. Some people are shocked that I build ELECTRIC and DIESEL locomotives -from other countries even...
When my son brings his friends home from school one of the first things they want to see are "The Big Engines".
When I was Secretary of The Gauge '3' Society I did suggest that the best way was simply for a few members to take a couple of models to a local Model Railway Club "Open Day" and just show people what they were like in comparison to '00' '0' or '1'.
I have seen the looks of sheer hunger on the faces of small boys and their fathers that have come to pick them up and seen the simple loco prowling up and down the 6 foot length of test track in my shed. I have demonstrated that building a Gauge '3' locomotive is a fairly cheap thing and can be done on a budget of £10 per week using the space between the kitchen sink and the cooker. By the very nature of the small number of people building and running Gauge '3' equipment there will be a small selection of equipment that can be purchased and used. What is required is a grass roots advertising campaign -not a model. Information would also be useful. I am working from books printed in the mid 1920's from HG and LBSC. I needed a manual for Gauge '3' -so I ended up having to (mostly) write my own. The modern trend of "garden grabbing" will also deter many people -a Gauge '3' layout requires garden space that very few people have nowadays. One of the criteria for my present home was a garden big enough to build in Gauge '3', even then I have had to have very tight corners of 2.2 metre radius.
What both "G3S" and "N2.5GA" seem to have forgotten is that most people simply want to build big locos and rolling stock -and have fun with them simply watching them and "playing trains"...
regards
ralph
Hi Ralph,
It has been a while since you last posted, although I had noticed that you have been logging in on an almost daily basis to observe.
You have me wondering, what is the significance of October 30th?
I assume you will not be having a bonfire of your G3 models on November 5th!
Your posts are always interesting (even though the subject matter may at times appear a little unconventional to some) and your contribution will be missed.
Returning to the subjects you cover in the current posting, the advertising point is something which is under discussion at present.
The first small step has been to take out two one-eighth page ads in Garden Rail (the first will be in the issue due out today) and other publications are currently under consideration. The design work and placing of these ads was undertaken by forum member Markie who donated his professional services, for which the Committee is most grateful.
Mark Pretious is involved with Railway Modeller and they will be publishing an article on Blackgang sometime next year (the photo session is in December and Members are invited to attend with their stock....see www.gauge3.org.uk/diary.html for details).
The draft material for the proposed Technical Manual is not forgotten and will, when time permits, be progressed (I have the digital material here and made an enquiry just a few days ago to ascertain the whereabouts of the hard copy).
Regards,
John.
You are at liberty to print your own copy, I did, all 473 A4 pages of it.
The significance of the 30th of October 2010 is obvious, as are the reasons why I check over entries on this forum because of it. Once I log out of this forum the preferences will ensure self destruction and prevent any more participation in it.
regards
ralph
Well, frankly, I am a bit mystified by some of this thread, as I thought some of these issues were pretty old hat by now.
First, let me say that there are lots of common interest points of interest between the Association and the Society and that we have an excellent & friendly relationship. The Assoc have for a long time been the main source of castings suitable for 2.5" gauge loco designs and most are suitable for G3 use. The Society has not needed to duplicate this effort and so we have focused on other areas (e.g. track components). I've also seen electric locos at Assoc Rallys, so it is not just a live steam vs electric debate either. But there are two pretty fundamental differences between the two groups
Gauge '3' is by definition the building and running of scenic, standard-gauge model railways on 2.5" gauge track. What's wrong with that? Gauge 'O' is about running standard gauge railways on 32mm track, Gauge '1' about the same on 45mm track.
In other words, we only (whether it be British or Continental outline) build standard gauge railways (4' 8.5" gauge) which on a track gauge of 2.5" (63.5mm) has to be to a scale of 1:22.6. That's it. We don't build narrow gauge or broad gauge engines. Not that I have any problems if anyone wants to do so, but it simply would not be a Gauge '3' engine. The Assoc prefer to build a wider range of prototypical gauges, both standard and narrow gauge. Polar Bear is a very nice little engine but being a narrow gauge loco, it clearly is NOT a suitable loco for Gauge '3' use. I am sure some G1/G0 Members also run 16mm narrow gauge engines on their tracks – but I don't think they would describe them as 'G1' or 'G0' engines.
Being a "scenic" model railway of course also means that you will not see passenger hauling at a Gauge '3' GTG, which are run at privately owned garden railways not designed for such use. The Assoc holds it's Rallys at Model Engineer Societies with 2.5" tracks, which are invariably raised tracks suitable for such use. There are other more subtle differences this implies. Passenger hauling engines tend to be not only larger but also more heavily built. LBSC designed small locomotives, not scale locomotives.
So there are clear differences between the modelling activities that the Association pursues and those of the G3 Society. There are no right or wrongs here, it's simply a matter of preference. As a Member of both organisations I see no conflict between the two as there are useful overlaps. I am also member of G1MRA (although I've never built anything in G1) and I decided some time ago that I wanted to model in Gauge '3'. I made that choice at a time when there was very little commercial support available for Gauge '3' but it was still the Gauge that appealed to me the most. Nothing has changed in that respect and Gauge '3' remains my scale and gauge of choice.
With regards Ralph's comments, Gauge '3' can support any standard gauge prototype. The fact that Members tend to model steam engines simply tells you about their modelling preferences rather than anything about the scope of G3. In fact I have seen several large diesel locos at GTG's recently – although both are in the process of rebuild/re-motoring. In terms of 'building materials' and information I really do not see the problem. The reason I am a Member of G1MRA is that I enjoy their magazine. Virtually everything described therein is easily adapted to G3 and there has been a lot of very good live steam info. This is much more up to date than LBSC or Greenly and most of this information is available on the web by the way. See http://lakes-pages.com/gauge3.co.uk/G3Forum/index.php?topic=228.0 for an example.
I think that summarises it. If anyone wants to model in 1:20.3 (because that has more commercial support) well good luck to them. Of course I'm not sure there is too much commercial support for British outline in 1:20.3. If you want to build a Polar Bear live steam engine, then again, good luck to you too. But if you have the skills to do build this engine, why not build a G3 'Dee' as Dick has recently described here?
Regards,
Ian T
Having finally caught up with this thread, the one matter I would like to discuss is Ralph's point that people want to buy in to this hobby to build a loco. I certainly don't - I don't have the inclination nor time. Why would I want to spend all those hours building something only to find I did not get on with it, or the scale? I bought a RTR N gauge set, and loved it. Same with a OO set, then G45, then, actually G3, via a job lot on ebay.
Some people simply don't have the time to build stuff but want an RTR solution and my view is if G3 is going to expand, then that is exactly what you guys should do.
Markie
Well I think we all understand that we (modelers that is) come in all shapes, sizes, preferences and abilities.
Some like to build their own stuff and some don't. Some can afford to buy (or commission) and some can not. This is true in all Gauges but is probably more sharply felt in G3 because a) the commercial RTR offerings are a bit restricted and b) the cost of what is available is much more expensive than the smaller gauges (but much less so when compared with comparable larger scales).
However, let's be clear. For a price, there are RTR engines out there, either used or from specialists such as GRS. So it is not that there are no RTR engines available - it is the really the price point that is the issue here.
Ralph correctly points out that it is possible to build a G3 loco for not a lot of money - and I absolutely agree with him. And that is the trade off in many things these days. Last week I fixed my Mums central heating system - it cost me 5.95 for a new fused connection unit. If Mum had called in a specialist, then it would probably would have cost her several hundred pounds. If Ralph commissioned someone to build his engines for him, then they would cost him a lot of money too, if only in labour.
For entry level (& inexpensive RTR G3) you need volume - not just a dozen units or so. I've spoken to several manufacturers about this recently. One stated that they worked on minimum volumes of 800 units per engine and the other said that they would not consider a run of less than a hundred units. So whilst I understand all the arguments about the attractions of affordable RTR - we find ourselves in a 'chicken & egg' situation.
We need volume to get a low-cost RTR engine and we need a low-cost RTR engine to get the volume.
Gauge '3' will grow and expand, after all it has been quietly doing so for a while now but perhaps some patience will be required.
http://lakes-pages.com/gauge3.co.uk/G3Forum/index.php?topic=389.msg1773#msg1773