Getting started in Gauge 3 (how to encourage newcomers young and old)

[Markie]

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

[MikeWilliams]

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

[cabbage]

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

[John Candy]

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.

[cabbage]

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

[John Candy]

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.

[IanT]

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

[John Candy]

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).

[cabbage]

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

[John Candy]

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

[midnight miller]

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

[John Candy]

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.

[MikeWilliams]

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.

[IanT]

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.   

[John Candy]

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.