Poll
Question:
When kits are produced which of these is OK by you when considering a purchase?
Option 1: Most of it is available to purchase, but you may have to improvise a few items.
Option 2: All of it is available but you have to get some parts from elsewhere.
Option 3: It's a 100% complete kit (excluding paint as we cant post that).
Option 4: It has been made, painted and decalled for you.
A poll to help us gauge in the future how members would like to buy kits/models.
First two apply to me Chris although i like to kitbash & add plasticard where needed or even combine kits or a mix of all three on occasions :claphappy:
If it's a kit then it should be just that - a kit. Not half a kit, nor a finished painted item. Imagine buying a model aircraft kit and having to add your own wings - engine yes but wings no.
While it can help with convenience (particularly if some of the necessary parts are difficult to get hold of), personally I would do what suits the manufacturer best! I see no point in a small manufacturer tying up cash in stocks of parts made by others. Comparisons with aircraft kits produced by large manufacturers are irrelevant for reasons of scale. Whether we like it or not we rely on a number of excellent cottage industry suppliers.
To complicate matters further some people will want different wheels/couplings etc, though I accept that is only a small minority. Where it starts to get even more complicated would be catering for transfers for vehicles which saw large numbers of liveries.
I'd rather have a greater choice of kits and have to find some bits myself than have a smaller number of 100% complete kits.
Quote from: red_death on January 02, 2014, 01:16:13 AM
While it can help with convenience (particularly if some of the necessary parts are difficult to get hold of), personally I would do what suits the manufacturer best! I see no point in a small manufacturer tying up cash in stocks of parts made by others. Comparisons with aircraft kits produced by large manufacturers are irrelevant for reasons of scale. Whether we like it or not we rely on a number of excellent cottage industry suppliers.
To complicate matters further some people will want different wheels/couplings etc, though I accept that is only a small minority. Where it starts to get even more complicated would be catering for transfers for vehicles which saw large numbers of liveries.
I'd rather have a greater choice of kits and have to find some bits myself than have a smaller number of 100% complete kits.
A. It's a bit unusual - customers doing what is more convenient for the manufacturer - and manufacturers finding it not worth sourcing parts from other suppliers. Sounds like a recipe for a short existence and a quick death.
A model kit should be a complete kit of parts , transfers are an item that I would prefer to have included but could be sourced independently as not every one will wish to build the same item but a wagon kit with out a chassis or a locomotive without funnel or roof or any major parts is not a kit but an aid to scratch building
Red D is making a good point. If the parts are readily available from a 3rd party, then it is cheaper for the manufacturer and helps them stay viable. However, the inconvenience to us as consumers may put us off purchasing. Who knows what's best. Cheaper price, but some inconvenience or a higher price? I voted for complete kits, FYI, as postage can be cruel so spoils any savings. Cheers, Bill.
I've never bought a kit yet, but after seeing davieb's Cartic-4 set thread I'm tempted. Personally I wouldn't even consider a kit unless it came with everything needed bar paint and transfers :)
Paul
My kit building in N gauge is very, very limited and I have not hidden my personal feelings on kits compared to RtR in past threads.
There is alot of kit builders out there in both N gauge and other scales and I respect that.
To that end I feel a kit should be complete with decals (minus paint and glue)
I think previous points made about manufacturers tying up cash on items sourced from a 3rd party needed in a kit are valid however when you look at it from the customers point of view then I think people want 100% of the kit parts included in their purchase. I think kit producers realise this and 'bite the bullet' in terms of associated costs in producing kits in order to appeal to customers In offering the complete package.
There would be worse than buying a kit that requires specific extra non optional parts, say wheels, motor chassis or etches/decals, putting the kit away for a bit (monthes or years) and then finding you can no longer get the required bits to finish it.
We've all seen the messages on the forums has anyone got x in their bits box. :'(
If you loose the orginal bits then it's tough luck that you cant get replacements.
I have never made a railway related kit, except for plastic or card buildings, but would like to. What puts me off is having to source all the parts needed which are not included in the kit. As a total novice I would be concerned I would order the wrong bits. As previously said cost of postage is also a consideration.
Dave
Quote from: ParkeNd on January 02, 2014, 01:23:33 AM
It's a bit unusual - customers doing what is more convenient for the manufacturer - and manufacturers finding it not worth sourcing parts from other suppliers. Sounds like a recipe for a short existence and a quick death.
As I explained, I think the primary flaw in that argument is that all manufacturers are equal. When you are talking about very small (often 1 man band) hobby manufacturers then the choice may be between producing something to share with others or not producing it as a kit at all - it is cheaper and easier for the small manufacturer not to bother making the kit!
If that means as a customer I have to accept that I only get certain parts and I have to do a bit of work myself then so be it - I am still better off than having no parts at all.
Of course I am slightly playing devil's advocate, but having spoken to a lot of small model railway manufacturers these are real issues. If we demand everything we may well end up with nothing...
Cheers, Mike
I think price comes into it, if a kit looks ok then so be it and it is acceptable to sell then the manufacturer will do that to keep costs down, surely if you want perfection then you will add your own expertise to the kit, most folks myself included only want the basics and to enjoy our model trains.
OK I do other scales but as most of my stuff is now kit built, I am happy to source couplings elsewhere. I tend to use one make only and buy them in packs of 10
It is nice to have wheels included but then quite a few people who buy RTR will swap wheels for better quality ones.
If Peco stop making their wagon chassis and kits a lot of people would be stuffed.
Locomotives are a bit different- I tend to check a chassis is available before I would buy the kit.
OK some kits cost as much as RTR when you cost up every thing but you also know you have that "individual" piece of rolling stock.
As someone who has made a few brass kits (emphasis on the few !!!), my preference is to get a complete kit - all the parts are there. OK, I accept paint won't be (it's not like AirFix is it ?), and that odds are I'll have to source decals - but I expect everything else unless clearly stated otherwise up-front.
And this follows on ... as long as I'm told that items aren't in but are available from xxx or yyy I will be (relatively) happy ... I expect, in this instance, that I'll be told which mfr(s) do the items I need and what the part number is; I do not expect just the mfr name - or even just that "you'll need to get your own wheels from somewhere, & I'm sure someone has done some decals that can be put on" - that is totally unacceptable (and yes, I do have at least one kit mfr in mind ! On querying this, "no, we don't know what wheels would be needed" and "not heard of anyone doing suitable decals, but someone must have" ... :veryangry: No, they did not get my order !)
While I'm being very unreasonable (from some mfrs point of view) I also expect decent instructions ! A bad photo of the kit & a small sheet of scrawled notes, poorly photocopied, aren't on ! In this day & age, there is no reason why a decent image of the kit can't be included, numbered with identifiers. Or that harder aspects can't have more detailed instructions. I also do ship modelling, and the instructions there are extremely good and detailed, and have been for years - many model rail mfrs can learn from these other mfrs !
To put it bluntly to model rail kit mfrs - you want my money ? Produce something I'm happy with, else I'll use your competitors - and not necessarily in this hobby !
Mike
I think there is a difference between what a particular customer might want - I can perfectly understand a new modeller being reluctant or unable to go out and source a Fetch & Pickit 9-spoke brake wheel - and what a manufacturer is in a position to provide. Like everything in life there is a wide spectrum in what kit manufacturers are able to provide with their kits.
Instructions - I agree in an ideal world, but are people prepared to pay for them to be written up to a decent standard for a kit which may only ever be a short run?
I'm afraid when I see some of the statements on here I wonder why some of our small manufacturers even bother! It is hardly as if any kit manufacturer is going to get stinkingly wealthy from it! By all means encourage and help kit manufacturers to do better but it isn't worth getting irate about. If the kit manufacturer doesn't meet your spec then don't buy - that is absolutely your perogative - but please don't get so het up that the manufacturer throws the towel in and ruin it for everyone.
Again, you might think I am being over-dramatic, but all this is based on real conversations I've had with some of the small model manufacturers.
Cheers, Mike
Another hornets' nest stirred up !
It comes down to time and money.
You can pick between
- complete set of parts
- low price
- availability of more unusual products
- good instructions
At best you can have three of those, most often two, or one for low volume stuff
What I think matters is that it is clear what you are going to get. If it's a scratch aid then it should be described as such.
Other things make it tricky
- some modellers will pay a lot for a full kit, but a lot more will pay a lot less for a more basic one. It's hard to cater for both at once
- some modellers like to buy a basic set of etches, build them and then when they are happy with the result go buy all the other finishing bits
- a lot of models had a wide range of details, liveries and the like. It pushes the price up massively if you need to ship the parts for all versions they might build
Quote
To put it bluntly to model rail kit mfrs - you want my money ? Produce something I'm happy with, else I'll use your competitors - and not necessarily in this hobby !
See we don't care.. if it's more work than you'll pay for then it's better you go elsewhere :P It's a mix of folks in business and breaking even, it's not a charity for modellers.
Alan
Well if we think of loco kits, are there any that come with thier own chassis and motor, not including kits from Langley that are sold with say a Farish chassis and motor.
By far the greatest number of loco kits aere sold wqithout chassis and motor, you need to go out and buy your own, it is iften the case that the "recommended " chassis is not really suitable for the intended model, example a number of kits produced to fit the Farish (Poole) black 5, in most cases wheels far too small and incorrectly spaced.
The biggesst problem with loco kits for N gauge is the non availability of loco wheels, AFAIK ABS/Beaver were the only source of drivers, now no longer available except for a few that occasionally appear on Ebay, the biggest drawback with them was quartering some of the early ones hasd squared axle ends, but later ones had nothing to help getting it right.
Valve gear is another stumbling block, maybe not such a problem for those with younger, steadier, hands and eyes
Coach and wagon kits should not have quite the same problems, probably because the wheels, bogies and underframe parts are easier to source and are often included in the kits, their cots being far less than a loco chassis, motor and wheels.
Decals for some rolling stock should be part of the kit, but to reduce cost to the kit manufacturer if say a coach originally of a pre-grouping company lasted through grouping and into BR days then when ordering the kit you should have the option to specify which period you require decals for.
Some loco classes had different tenders, if it was a major difference, say 6 wheel or 8 wheel then both tyoes should be available as an option when ordering, minor differences like coal rails, tool boxes, tank fillers could either be suppied or be easy to source or make.
Quote from: Dorsetmike on January 02, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
The biggesst problem with loco kits for N gauge is the non availability of loco wheels
Yes it would nice to have supplies of a few sizes from somewhere, or even wheels + motor tender sets. One problem though is that volume dominates the costings. The cost of "random least wanted livery full loco" is often lower or about the same as the price a manufacturer would have to charge for just the chassis as a product. From the suppliers point of view it's clearly simpler to just sell whole locos, and it also makes their dealers happy because there is a market to soak up the "oops.. wrong livery choice" models.
Quote
Coach and wagon kits should not have quite the same problems, probably because the wheels, bogies and underframe parts are easier to source and are often included in the kits, their cots being far less than a loco chassis, motor and wheels.
RTR bogies are useful but Bachmann in particular are a complete PITA about it in N. They say 'we don't do parts' then do them in OO and go quiet when you ask them to explain that. Dapol in comparison have been very helpful. We do have a big problem with the lack of suitable wheels for scale width bogies or 3D print bogies.
Quote
Decals for some rolling stock should be part of the kit, but to reduce cost to the kit manufacturer if say a coach originally of a pre-grouping company lasted through grouping and into BR days then when ordering the kit you should have the option to specify which period you require decals for.
Pre-group decals are actually some of the simplest as they are out of copyright. The worst ones are modern ones. It can take weeks of negotiation. test prints and sign-offs to get decals approved by modern operators and while some small vendors simply "forget" it's not a good long term business model especially given the penaties for it are now potentially criminal.
The problem is also getting worse both because the operators are now all 'intellectual property, brand maximisation' etc not 'we run trains', and because for BR and grouping logos still in copyright the idiots in charge of our country abolished BR (Resiudary), which owned such stuff and split everything it did up into other bodies like DaFT. So it used to be easy to sort stuff, now its basically impossible. If you didn't have a licence pre-abolition you are *screwed*.
In many cases the licensing offered is a per unit royalty with a base cost, which makes it impossible to do your own decals commercially. It really in many cases is way cheaper to tell people "Get Fox sheet XYZ" than to do them.
Quote
Some loco classes had different tenders, if it was a major difference, say 6 wheel or 8 wheel then both tyoes should be available as an option when ordering, minor differences like coal rails, tool boxes, tank fillers could either be suppied or be easy to source or make.
A difference that big is basically two kits, and often from a design and stock perspective exactly that. It's a bit easier with 3D printing but still a lot of work.
Alan
I don't mind buying some parts/decals elsewhere at all, as long as suitable options/manufacturers/suppliers are made clear at the outset. Then I can work out how much the kit is actually going to cost me in total and I know what I have to do.
What I don't enjoy is to buy a kit and find I've actually ended up with a little/large project researching and sourcing bits & pieces with the feeling that everyone else buying it is doing a similar thing when the kit supplier (who almost certainly knows more about the subject anyway) could just have done it once and let us all in on the secret! Surely the kit was made with something suitable in mind and not produced in a vacuum (Well, unless it's a vacform... Sorry, I'll get me coat!)
Reasonable/good instructions are important to me - I want to buy a kit, not a 3D puzzle. ;) And anyway, I don't necessarily know that the left hand threaded thrangipangi was fitted on the right hand side if the prototype was built on an even numbered day and the left hand side on odd numbered days...
Quote from: ParkeNd on January 02, 2014, 12:40:11 AM
If it's a kit then it should be just that - a kit. Not half a kit, nor a finished painted item. Imagine buying a model aircraft kit and having to add your own wings - engine yes but wings no.
Would you expect the aircraft to fly? If not then the parts for a static model could all be made in the same mould or material.
Would you expect a loco kit to be a static model though?
Quote from: red_death on January 02, 2014, 11:31:01 AM
I think there is a difference between what a particular customer might want [...] and what a manufacturer is in a position to provide. Like everything in life there is a wide spectrum in what kit manufacturers are able to provide with their kits.
Er - I said I was happy to go & get items not in the kit -
as long as I'm told what they are ! That's the rub - quite a few mfrs don't bother to tell the buyer - is it because they've not researched the prototype properly ?
QuoteInstructions - I agree in an ideal world, but are people prepared to pay for them to be written up to a decent standard for a kit which may only ever be a short run?
And if there were decent instructions, don't you think more people would be prepared to try it ? And then more of the kit would be sold ? Also - see later re modularisation.
QuoteI'm afraid when I see some of the statements on here I wonder why some of our small manufacturers even bother!
And when I see some kits, I think the same thing ...
Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 02, 2014, 02:08:30 PM
What I think matters is that it is clear what you are going to get. If it's a scratch aid then it should be described as such.
Agreed - and this isn't as prevalent as it should be :(
Quote
- some modellers will pay a lot for a full kit, but a lot more will pay a lot less for a more basic one. It's hard to cater for both at once
- a lot of models had a wide range of details, liveries and the like. It pushes the price up massively if you need to ship the parts for all versions they might build
In that case - why isn't there an option for the modeller ? Such as the basic kit, then additional packs (either for fine detailing or for the different liveries) ? The mfr can ship out the basic kit quickly, then the extras (if not in stock) a short while later. I see this in other areas of the kit building hobby, but
rarely in model rail ...
QuoteQuote
To put it bluntly to model rail kit mfrs - you want my money ? Produce something I'm happy with, else I'll use your competitors - and not necessarily in this hobby !
See we don't care.. if it's more work than you'll pay for then it's better you go elsewhere
So why should I care about the mfr ? If it's more work than they're prepared to put in (they only have to write the instructions once, for crying out loud ! And if they're sensible they'll modularise the etch as much as possible - and that goes for the instructions too), I'll pay my money to the guy who treats his potential customers as important people - after all, without them he won't sell anything ... If that means you go bust - tough luck. We're not idiots - don't treat us as such.
Real life example (I gave one earlier about a mfr who either doesn't care about his potential customers, or didn't research the prototype properly - or both !) : I'm building a set of coaches from a very small mfr. While the instructions aren't brilliant, they're good enough to get along with (albeit I'm re-writing them as I go along for my own benefit - as I say, I'm building a set one coach at a time, and won't necessarily remember a trick I used on a previous coach). No paint or decals included, but I'm told where I can get them and what I need (PP & Fox, as it happens). There are a number of items sourced in (bogeys, wheels, articulation) so I don't have to go out & track these down - makes the kit more expensive,
but it's all in one place (I'd be happy to source myself, as long as I knew what the mfr had designed against). End result : I'm happy with the kits and have spend a fair bit with him, with a similar amount to go on my next order when I finish the ones currently with me.
Another example - I know a small naval kit mfr : they do small runs of product; modularise both etches and instructions to make life easier for them & their customers; provide details on what is and isn't in the kit & where to get what's needed; provide the kit in several levels (basic; intermediate; and full - the difference is in how many packets you get; more packets are included the further up the chain you go); and also sell the additional packets separately for those who don't want / can't afford to get the full kit in one go. They have created a range of high-end products and are doing well off it. So I know the business model works for those willing to invest into it.
Quote from: BernardTPM on January 02, 2014, 04:11:19 PM
QuoteIf it's a kit then it should be just that - a kit. Not half a kit, nor a finished painted item. Imagine buying a model aircraft kit and having to add your own wings - engine yes but wings no.
Would you expect a loco kit to be a static model though?
I'd expect to
either get the mechanism
or be told what mechanism was suitable ... depending on how much the kit was !
Reading the various comments, I'm struck that we seem to have two main camps :
- Mfrs not willing to be more flexible (because it's more work for them ?)
- Modellers wanting mfrs to provide better kits (whether in the kit itself, the instructions, or both
and a small scattering between the two. I hope (but won't hold my breath) that those in the first camp will listen more to those in the second - because that's the group of people with the money the mfrs want ...
Quote from: MikeDunn on January 02, 2014, 04:17:53 PM
Quote from: BernardTPM on January 02, 2014, 04:11:19 PM
QuoteIf it's a kit then it should be just that - a kit. Not half a kit, nor a finished painted item. Imagine buying a model aircraft kit and having to add your own wings - engine yes but wings no.
Would you expect a loco kit to be a static model though?
I'd expect to either get the mechanism or be told what mechanism was suitable ... depending on how much the kit was !
I would expect that too, but I don't think you can fairly compare a kit for a static model with one that would be expected to operate. A fairer comparison for aircraft would be flying models - I doubt all of those come complete with motor and radio control partly because people tend to have their own favoured options/makes.
For loco kit manufacturers now the big problem comes when the chassis the kit was designed for goes out of production. While Farish was producing at Poole the chassis tended to remain in production (sometimes with minor improvements/modifications) for many years, indeed there were a lot of common parts. That's much less the case now. There's always the second hand market, of course, but you won't find those as stock items in shops.
Quote from: BernardTPM on January 02, 2014, 05:04:55 PM
I would expect that too, but I don't think you can fairly compare a kit for a static model with one that would be expected to operate. A fairer comparison for aircraft would be flying models - I doubt all of those come complete with motor and radio control partly because people tend to have their own favoured options/makes.
Indeed they don't, but they do normally come with enough information to judge what size powerplant is suitable - too small and your pride and joy will never take off, too big and it'll be uncontrollable, or you'll rip the wings off when you throttle up! Ditto, the radio gear - the airframe designer should give you an idea of what strength and weight of servo is appropriate if there's any reason to doubt that the "standard" servo won't suit.
Quote from: BernardTPM on January 02, 2014, 05:04:55 PM
For loco kit manufacturers now the big problem comes when the chassis the kit was designed for goes out of production. While Farish was producing at Poole the chassis tended to remain in production (sometimes with minor improvements/modifications) for many years, indeed there were a lot of common parts. That's much less the case now. There's always the second hand market, of course, but you won't find those as stock items in shops.
I've every sympathy with the problem, which is by no means confined to railway modelling in this age of instant obsolescence. (I've just been grappling with it in buying a Skype camera for a TV <1 year old...) But, as a customer, I don't want it thrown on me. IMHO, the chassis for which the kit's designed should be specified, and if that's no longer available, an alternative given. Or it should be made plain that there is none. Then I can make my own decision as to how to proceed. Am I prepared to kitbash or scour the second-hand market? Surely, it can't be good business practice, commercially or ethically, to alienate your customers by leaving them to find out the hard way that a vital element of their model is no longer available? Or to have to spend time and effort in pre-purchase research that the vendor/supplier knows the answer to full well.
I can see the appeal of an all-in-one-package idea, but there's also people out there who might not want everything in that package. For example (as a 2mm modeller) the bogies/chassis/wheels/couplings that come in a lot of N wagon kits aren't much use to me. On a wagon kit their inclusion in a kit isn't a massive influence on the price (and manufacturers do kindly supply kits without them), but in loco kits they could form a big part of the price tag. I guess making a couple of options at the point of purchase is the best option.
Pix
Quote from: MikeDunn on January 02, 2014, 04:17:53 PM
And if there were decent instructions, don't you think more people would be prepared to try it ? And then more of the kit would be sold ? Also - see later re modularisation.
In that case - why isn't there an option for the modeller ? Such as the basic kit, then additional packs (either for fine detailing or for the different liveries) ? The mfr can ship out the basic kit quickly, then the extras (if not in stock) a short while later. I see this in other areas of the kit building hobby, but rarely in model rail ...
So why should I care about the mfr ? If it's more work than they're prepared to put in (they only have to write the instructions once, for crying out loud ! And if they're sensible they'll modularise the etch as much as possible - and that goes for the instructions too), I'll pay my money to the guy who treats his potential customers as important people - after all, without them he won't sell anything ... If that means you go bust - tough luck. We're not idiots - don't treat us as such.
You want beautiful clear instructions - well think about the cost of doing so for a small run of say 25-50 kits and how much it adds to the price...
I think you are missing one crucial group, which is hobbyist mfrs who provide the stuff they make for themselves to others. It isn't a case of not willing to be flexible or provide better kits - for both of those read more time and/or money which they may not have. For many of those people it isnt their livelihood and if they don't sell much it doesn't make too much difference to them - criticising them for not doing what *you* want hardly encourages people to provide what *they* can.
I still think you are comparing apples and pears...
Quote from: MikeDunn on January 02, 2014, 04:17:53 PM
QuoteI'm afraid when I see some of the statements on here I wonder why some of our small manufacturers even bother!
And when I see some kits, I think the same thing ...
A lot of oddities and one off kits get done because someone asked for them. Several of the small manufacturers actually exist solely because people kept saying "Can I get one as well" to things like 3D printed DMU bodies.
They could of couse simply have said "No" instead.
Similarly a lot of kits assume the builder knows about or will go order or borrow drawings/books etc for the prototype. Case in point being the Worsley Works scratch aids. They assume you know the prototype or are prepared to go order the drawings and/or books on it. In some scales such as O or 3mm being prepared to go get the drawings is the default, ditto to a large extent in 2fs.
A lot of "serious" kitbuilders treat instructions as firelighters in the first place. Doesn't help newcomers I know!
Quote from: MikeDunn on January 02, 2014, 04:17:53 PM
Quote
- some modellers will pay a lot for a full kit, but a lot more will pay a lot less for a more basic one. It's hard to cater for both at once
- a lot of models had a wide range of details, liveries and the like. It pushes the price up massively if you need to ship the parts for all versions they might build
In that case - why isn't there an option for the modeller ? Such as the basic kit, then additional packs (either for fine detailing or for the different liveries) ? The mfr can ship out the basic kit quickly, then the extras (if not in stock) a short while later. I see this in other areas of the kit building hobby, but rarely in model rail ...
It means more product lines, more stock, more product codes, more catalogue entries. It rapidly adds up when you've got 800 already and it would add another 250 or so!
I can't speak for other manufacturers but I know in my case its not worth the effort for the miniscule extra return it would produce. Much easier and more efficient to field the odd email saying "I want to build XYZ" or "I need all the Ultima parts to finsih a Worsley Works blah"
QuoteQuoteQuote
To put it bluntly to model rail kit mfrs - you want my money ? Produce something I'm happy with, else I'll use your competitors - and not necessarily in this hobby !
See we don't care.. if it's more work than you'll pay for then it's better you go elsewhere
So why should I care about the mfr ? If it's more work than they're prepared to put in (they only have to write the instructions once, for crying out loud !
Cost of instructions divides by units sold. Shift 200 kits and the cost of instructions is low. Shift ten and the cost of instructions is significant.
Another way to look at it is this. A basic scratch aid coach in some styles with low volume can be put together so it sells at maybe a tenner. In low volumes with instructions, all the bits bundled, interior, decals etc you'd be looking at over £50. In which case the volume sold will be zero.
At commercial rates if it takes 2 hours to write the instructions thats £50 to split between the units sold. More importantly most N manufacturers are hobby or at most part time. Thats 2 hours they could spend on their layout, in the pub or even designing another kit.
Options
a) drink beer with friends
b) write instructions all evening for minimal extra sales
guess which is going to win!
Quote
range of high-end products and are doing well off it. So I know the business model works for those willing to invest into it.
Reality check - anyone willing to actually invest in N gauge model railways who is doing it for money not just for love goes to O gauge instead. I could turn Ultima into a full time job in O, I could make it squeak by as a full time job in OO, I can make it break even in N and maybe pay for some of the beer. That's fine for me as its my hobby.
N has a very small following, of which many many are collectors, the other big chunk are 'RTR only' and very few are actually kit builders and most of them are not big spenders in the way you get in O gauge (and if they had all that money many would probably be doing O instead...)
Seriously - the first business answer to the question "how do I increase my turnover or margin" is "drop N gauge"
Alan
I produced a 4-page set of instructions with my recent Class 312 conversion kit, including roof plans as a downloadable PDF, with the option to have a printed set for an extra pound or two to cover costs. On the whole, I produce fairly generic instructions for most of my products, with specific details where needed.
Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 02, 2014, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: MikeDunn on January 02, 2014, 04:17:53 PM
QuoteI'm afraid when I see some of the statements on here I wonder why some of our small manufacturers even bother!
And when I see some kits, I think the same thing ...
A lot of oddities and one off kits get done because someone asked for them. Several of the small manufacturers actually exist solely because people kept saying "Can I get one as well" to things like 3D printed DMU bodies.
They could of couse simply have said "No" instead.
Similarly a lot of kits assume the builder knows about or will go order or borrow drawings/books etc for the prototype. Case in point being the Worsley Works scratch aids. They assume you know the prototype or are prepared to go order the drawings and/or books on it. In some scales such as O or 3mm being prepared to go get the drawings is the default, ditto to a large extent in 2fs.
A lot of "serious" kitbuilders treat instructions as firelighters in the first place. Doesn't help newcomers I know!
Quote from: MikeDunn on January 02, 2014, 04:17:53 PM
Quote
- some modellers will pay a lot for a full kit, but a lot more will pay a lot less for a more basic one. It's hard to cater for both at once
- a lot of models had a wide range of details, liveries and the like. It pushes the price up massively if you need to ship the parts for all versions they might build
In that case - why isn't there an option for the modeller ? Such as the basic kit, then additional packs (either for fine detailing or for the different liveries) ? The mfr can ship out the basic kit quickly, then the extras (if not in stock) a short while later. I see this in other areas of the kit building hobby, but rarely in model rail ...
It means more product lines, more stock, more product codes, more catalogue entries. It rapidly adds up when you've got 800 already and it would add another 250 or so!
I can't speak for other manufacturers but I know in my case its not worth the effort for the miniscule extra return it would produce. Much easier and more efficient to field the odd email saying "I want to build XYZ" or "I need all the Ultima parts to finsih a Worsley Works blah"
QuoteQuoteQuote
To put it bluntly to model rail kit mfrs - you want my money ? Produce something I'm happy with, else I'll use your competitors - and not necessarily in this hobby !
See we don't care.. if it's more work than you'll pay for then it's better you go elsewhere
So why should I care about the mfr ? If it's more work than they're prepared to put in (they only have to write the instructions once, for crying out loud !
Cost of instructions divides by units sold. Shift 200 kits and the cost of instructions is low. Shift ten and the cost of instructions is significant.
Another way to look at it is this. A basic scratch aid coach in some styles with low volume can be put together so it sells at maybe a tenner. In low volumes with instructions, all the bits bundled, interior, decals etc you'd be looking at over £50. In which case the volume sold will be zero.
At commercial rates if it takes 2 hours to write the instructions thats £50 to split between the units sold. More importantly most N manufacturers are hobby or at most part time. Thats 2 hours they could spend on their layout, in the pub or even designing another kit.
Options
a) drink beer with friends
b) write instructions all evening for minimal extra sales
guess which is going to win!
Quote
range of high-end products and are doing well off it. So I know the business model works for those willing to invest into it.
Reality check - anyone willing to actually invest in N gauge model railways who is doing it for money not just for love goes to O gauge instead. I could turn Ultima into a full time job in O, I could make it squeak by as a full time job in OO, I can make it break even in N and maybe pay for some of the beer. That's fine for me as its my hobby.
N has a very small following, of which many many are collectors, the other big chunk are 'RTR only' and very few are actually kit builders and most of them are not big spenders in the way you get in O gauge (and if they had all that money many would probably be doing O instead...)
Seriously - the first business answer to the question "how do I increase my turnover or margin" is "drop N gauge"
Alan
Alan,
I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, and I certainly agree with much of it, but having read your post I did have a couple of thoughts.
Your earlier comment, "See we don't care.. if it's more work than you'll pay for then it's better you go elsewhere", I think is an unfortunate thing to say, especially on a forum which I would think comprises a good chunk of your N gauge business? Customers, I'm sure, don't appreciate being told by a manufacturer or shop, that their needs/wants/opinions aren't valued.
Your point about increasing the cost of your kit from £10 to £50 when you add all the extra parts needed to complete it; Apart from the cost of instructions, that £50 total exists for the modeler regardless because he has to source those extra parts him/herself, no? But I'd have thought the modeler would be more inclined to buy another kit from you because he/she knew it was all there to start with and that he/she could trust you to provide a complete product.
Secondly, I wonder how many more kits you might sell if it was known that some clear instructions were provided? A lot of people are put off kit building, particularly in model railway terms, precisely because of the fact that it is a daunting enough prospect for many to take a kit and produce a good job of it. Provide no, or unhelpful, instructions, and that feeling is multiplied. Any help the manufacturer can give is surely a win-win. The modeler gets a helping hand, the manufacturer gets repeat business. Even something as simple as "assemble these components first. Next, attach this component." I don't think it needs to be a series of exploded diagrams, a la Hasegawa.
Part of a forum members gripe to the NGF in letter form, was the fact that kit building or "real" modeling was in decline. I think more people would build more kits if they were more accessible.
For the record, all of my stock is RTR so far, but I certainly intend to build kits of stock, particularly if it isn't available RTR. I've already purchased my first kit, a Parkwood diesel brake tender.
One final thought, and this isn't related directly to your post but merely an observation with regard to kit built locomotives.
When the bulk RTR producers present us with a new model, there are countless comments regarding the inaccuracies of the model, sometimes with regard to the minutest of details, paint shades, etc. However, when it comes to kit locomotives, it seems that the same people are happy to use an "approximate" chassis or an inappropriate bogie for that locomotive body, and wide bristle paintwork. I genuinely wonder why this is.....
My last is not meant as a criticism of any person or group of persons, merely something that perplexes me.
In fact, none of what I've written is meant as criticism, just my thoughts.
Scotty
Interesting discussion, I do try to cover everything in my kits, for my building kits I even looked into glue but gave up as the one I wanted could not be bought in at a cost effective way. I havealso looked at paints as iI would like to do a complete kit for kids, but I do not think it would legal or worth it.
Alan,
Meant to say I agree wholeheartedly with this statement:
QuoteWhat I think matters is that it is clear what you are going to get. If it's a scratch aid then it should be described as such.
And I find you're own site very good in this respect.
Scotty
Quote from: ScottyStitch on January 02, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Alan,
I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, and I certainly agree with much of it, but having read your post I did have a couple of thoughts.
Your earlier comment, "See we don't care.. if it's more work than you'll pay for then it's better you go elsewhere", I think is an unfortunate thing to say, especially on a forum which I would think comprises a good chunk of your N gauge business? Customers, I'm sure, don't appreciate being told by a manufacturer or shop, that their needs/wants/opinions aren't valued.
Scotty,
I don't think that Alan's comment was meant literally. I think he was being ironic, or whatever the technical term is.
Alan does care, and one of the things that is included in the price when you buy his kits is free advice about the bits you need to finish the model.
Best regards,
Joe
Hi Guys
Thanks to the 75 of 3064 members that have voted so far = 2.4% turn out...
Some very interesting opinions and ideas. No magic bullet but plenty for us to learn from with the MPV, RHT 92 and upcoming releases.
Regards
Russ
Quote from: ScottyStitch on January 02, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Your earlier comment, "See we don't care.. if it's more work than you'll pay for then it's better you go elsewhere", I think is an unfortunate thing to say, especially on a forum which I would think comprises a good chunk of your N gauge business? Customers, I'm sure, don't appreciate being told by a manufacturer or shop, that their needs/wants/opinions aren't valued.
I was only replying in response to the 'threat' being. If you want something for less than it costs then if you spend the money on a different hobby we'd both be happier. And I kind of trusted the :P would indicate appropriate levels of humour
Quote
Your point about increasing the cost of your kit from £10 to £50 when you add all the extra parts needed to complete it; Apart from the cost of instructions, that £50 total exists for the modeler regardless because he has to source those extra parts him/herself, no? But I'd have thought the modeler would be more inclined to buy another kit from you because he/she knew it was all there to start with and that he/she could trust you to provide a complete product.
No. Much of that cost is organising stuff, making more parts and holding stock. Generally I can't buy ten packs of bits from other small vendors for much of a reduction if any, so I'd have to charge the buyer the cost of the part, the cost of me getting it from the supplier, the cost of repacking it, the cost of sending it on.
It also depends a lot on the kit and the people. I have done some experimenting and as far as I can tell
- for introductory kits or kits designed to be easy to build instructions matter a lot, as does knowing how to finish the kit. For cheap and intro kits people actually often don't want the extra parts. I know quite a few people used rounded pins for the LBSCR four wheelers (as the instructions suggests as a cheap choice) rather than accurate torpedo vents.
- for more middling complexity kits people want instructions and full kits - but some people just want etched sides and will scratchbuild the rest (which is why those kits I do sell in two forms). Bogie choice also varies a lot hence I don't generally include bogies. That for Ultima goes between 'I'll use some vaguely similar RTR bogie' right to 'I want to use 2mmSA fine scale bogies and wheels'
- for small run, obscure stuff, or things where the design means you need to scratchbuild some parts (eg etched shells with filler for roof domes), then as far as I can tell it makes no difference if it has detailed instructions or not.
Quote
Secondly, I wonder how many more kits you might sell if it was known that some clear instructions were provided? A lot of people are put off kit building, particularly in model railway terms, precisely because of the fact that it is a daunting enough prospect for many to take a kit and produce a good job of it. Provide no, or unhelpful, instructions, and that feeling is multiplied. Any help the manufacturer can give is surely a win-win. The modeler gets a helping hand, the manufacturer gets repeat business. Even something as simple as "assemble these components first. Next, attach this component." I don't think it needs to be a series of exploded diagrams, a la Hasegawa.
I've tried to measure this by comparing some of the kits (and also what people ask). As far as I can tell for a lot of newer kit builders the deciders appear to be
"Can I stick it on an existing Peco chassis"
"Is it cheap (or I guess 'am I risking little if I can't finish it')"
"Does it include RTR bogies and couplers"
Quote
Part of a forum members gripe to the NGF in letter form, was the fact that kit building or "real" modeling was in decline. I think more people would build more kits if they were more accessible.
I'm actually not convinced it is. Maybe per N gauger but not I think in total. I am seeing plenty of people who email me saying "I've never built an etched kit before..." and who are usually worried about soldering, priming and painting. That's one of the reasons I did some of the little four wheel coaches.
I do wonder if the apparent fading of clubs is more connected - we all sit on the interwotsit and that's just not the same as sitting down with someone from the same club building a kit together. There are still opportunities to do this (eg http://www.missendenrailwaymodellers.org.uk/ (http://www.missendenrailwaymodellers.org.uk/)) but not perhaps as many and as easily.
Quote
For the record, all of my stock is RTR so far, but I certainly intend to build kits of stock, particularly if it isn't available RTR. I've already purchased my first kit, a Parkwood diesel brake tender.
Good choice. In fact I'd recommend the Parkwood class 15/16/10800 as an excellent starter for kit locomotives as well. In fact 10800 is a great starter as it fits onto the 20 chassis *and* it's black, with black bits so the only bit of painting beyond a black spraycan is the buffer beam! Modelmaster do the needed numbers for it as well.
Quote
One final thought, and this isn't related directly to your post but merely an observation with regard to kit built locomotives.
When the bulk RTR producers present us with a new model, there are countless comments regarding the inaccuracies of the model, sometimes with regard to the minutest of details, paint shades, etc. However, when it comes to kit locomotives, it seems that the same people are happy to use an "approximate" chassis or an inappropriate bogie for that locomotive body, and wide bristle paintwork. I genuinely wonder why this is.....
I'm probably going to offend someone now :laugh:. My own impression is that while there are some modellers who want it all RTR and perfect (despite using narrow track, foot wide wheels and couplings the size of a volkswagen beetle) there are a lot who are not quite so fussy. You don't hear that because while everyone who cares jumps up and down a lot, those who don't stay quiet and happy.
Eg the Farish 24 has major errors. Most people haven't noticed. A lot of people who have noticed aren't fussed (it's still a nice 24 thank you) and a tiny number have gone and fixed it. It's rated very highly as a model.
Likewise Union Mills seems to be doing a fine trade in solid locos that are not that detailed.
The other thing to me is that a kit is something you build from. I've got to paint it anyway and it arrives in bits so it's actually much easier to correct, customise and/or detail than many RTR models. A poorly detailed kit isn't a big deal. I do get peeved about both RTR locos and kits that are the wrong shape because that's one thing you *can't* fix.
Quote
My last is not meant as a criticism of any person or group of persons, merely something that perplexes me.
In fact, none of what I've written is meant as criticism, just my thoughts.
Scotty
Some very interesting points.
BTW you should thank Allen Doherty at Worsley Works for "scratch aid" - he came up with the term as I understand it as a good way to distinguish from full kits.
Ntastic: Out of curiousity - do you get the impression that your customers (especially at shows) have different expectations about what is in a 'kit bought at a show retail' and online stuff ?
Alan
Quote from: ScottyStitch on January 02, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
When the bulk RTR producers present us with a new model, there are countless comments regarding the inaccuracies of the model, sometimes with regard to the minutest of details, paint shades, etc. However, when it comes to kit locomotives, it seems that the same people are happy to use an "approximate" chassis or an inappropriate bogie for that locomotive body, and wide bristle paintwork. I genuinely wonder why this is.....
Hi
Generally kit manufacturers don't have the money to produce a new chassis for their kit but a RTR manufacturer has the money to develop a completely new chassis so I personally would expect them to get it right.
Cheers
Paul
Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 02, 2014, 09:05:17 PM
If you want something for less than it costs then if you spend the money on a different hobby we'd both be happier.
Errr ... where did I say I wanted something for less than it costs ?
Quote
Much of that cost is organising stuff, making more parts and holding stock. Generally I can't buy ten packs of bits from other small vendors for much of a reduction if any, so I'd have to charge the buyer the cost of the part, the cost of me getting it from the supplier, the cost of repacking it, the cost of sending it on.
Which I acknowledge, and is why I said I'm happy to do this
as long as I know what's needed. The point being many of the small mfrs
don't tell us !
Quote from: NtasticShop on January 02, 2014, 08:01:10 PM
I do try to cover everything in my kits, for my building kits I even looked into glue but gave up as the one I wanted could not be bought in at a cost effective way.
And kudos to you for that. The mfrs who do this are more likely, in my view, to succeed than those who can't be arsed. I hope you keep this up :thumbsup:
Quote from: Tank on January 01, 2014, 10:57:58 PM
A poll to help us gauge in the future how members would like to buy kits/models.
Nice one Tank, I've been reading this thread with very keen interest! ;)
Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 02, 2014, 09:05:17 PM
BTW you should thank Allen Doherty at Worsley Works for "scratch aid" - he came up with the term as I understand it as a good way to distinguish from full kits.
Alan
Correct! Not only that a very nice chap to know also! :thumbsup:
Tanks original question is the most important question worth asking for a business - what does the customer expect of us. The second question worth asking is "and are we meeting that expectation"
Both questions, the one asked and the one that might have been asked, seem to me to have been answered albeit in a range of styles. The customer wants complete kits of parts and good quality instructions. Generally that does not seem to be what is provided, and the gap between customer expectations and what the customer wants is being defended by businesses that are still small.
The only worthwhile objective for big and small businesses is the same - anything that is not for the customer is simply not worth doing.
Metcalfe Kits seem to be doing what the customer wants and are finding ways to add extra value for the customer in ways they can afford. And they are prospering if recent magazine articles are anything to go on - greater sales, better premises, more staff, and new products in the pipeline.
The concerns customers have raised need to be shown to have been taken on board and action plans being developed. Or it's curtains in the medium term.
Quote from: ParkeNd on January 03, 2014, 12:04:38 AM
The concerns customers have raised need to be shown to have been taken on board and action plans being developed. Or it's curtains in the medium term.
IFF you are a real business. A lot of the small manufacturers appear, make things because they wanted them, the items get superseded and they stop making them. If you aren't in it for money then if nobody is asking for the item that's great - more time to work on the layout or go to the pub :beers:
Alan
Quote from: ParkeNd on January 03, 2014, 12:04:38 AM
Tanks original question is the only question worth asking for a business - what does the customer expect of us. The second question worth asking is "and are we meeting that expectation"
The third vital question is "are we able to do that and make sufficient profit to continue the business?"
Quote from: ParkeNd on January 03, 2014, 12:04:38 AM
The only worthwhile objective for big and small businesses is the same - anything that is not for the customer is simply not worth doing.
Though that doesn't mean that everything for the customer
is worth doing.
Quote from: BernardTPM on January 03, 2014, 12:28:35 AM
Quote from: ParkeNd on January 03, 2014, 12:04:38 AM
Tanks original question is the only question worth asking for a business - what does the customer expect of us. The second question worth asking is "and are we meeting that expectation"
The third vital question is "are we able to do that and make sufficient profit to continue the business?"
Quote from: ParkeNd on January 03, 2014, 12:04:38 AM
The only worthwhile objective for big and small businesses is the same - anything that is not for the customer is simply not worth doing.
Though that doesn't mean that everything for the customer is worth doing.
Sadly have heard both points argued before and by companies for whom I worked (because I needed the job). Those companies don't exist any more. But the ones who worked solely for what their customers expected are thriving. Costs do have to be controlled when sales are low, but the emphasis can't change away from what the customer needs.
Bottom line, the objective of a business is to sell goods and/or services at a profit. Exactly how it does that can be endlessly debated and there are endless examples to choose from. There is also short term, medium term and long term to consider:
Short term - Make a profit by selling goods or services.
Medium term - Make sufficient profit to be able to restock/keep expertise (if just services).
Long term - Make sufficient profit to be able to develop new products and/or services.
Obviously having customers that keep coming back for more helps the medium and long term. If a business wants to survive long term that's probably the best way to do it.
Option four in the poll isn't "kit building" it's buying a custom made model!!
Of the other options, I'm not too worried about everything being in the box so long as the required add-ons are easily obtainable and ideally the packaging clearly states what is needed without having to buy the kit, open it and read through the instructions to find you need a left-handed widget that was last produced in 1986!
For someone whom is entering the world of being a kit manufacturer, this debate so far has been invaluable. A lot of the comments made here have pretty much confirmed my original conceptualisation to produce a kit that the hobbyist will take pleasure in assembling, without of course hopefully avoiding the need to scavenge around for additional parts that are either costly or hard to source.
Having said that there's no way would I ever really criticise kit manufacturers past or present, unless of course they are trying to sell a product that is a diabolical rip off. But like anything produced today there is always room for improvement and of course with new involvement brings fresh ideas.
Its because of established kit producers in the hobby why I have been inspired to venture on the road I am on now, my own personal conception being that it is a bit of a minefield to realistically buy something that is modeler friendly, the description "scratch aid" seems to be used quite frequently and to me indicates that for someone not adequately prepared mentally or toolwise, would have just purchased a difficult puzzle that will eventually end up on ebay or in the bin.
But most important of all, it must be understood without their (the kit manufacturers) valuable contributions modeling would not have the diversity it has today, as these pioneers have not only provided variety but have also possibly influenced RTR manufactures in some way or form.
So for me the remarks made here have been noted and really appreciated :thumbsup:
I have improvised in the past but a being able to get all the parts I need is definitley prefferable. A complete kit with everything supplied in one box is definitely a luxury. :P
Have scanned through some of the posts but for me:
- Kit means everything included
Semi-kit means the intricate parts are there, substitute your own scratch built or common parts
...have to say though I bought a few "kit" or "railway mouldings" last 6 months and I compare them to the model boat scene -they are absolutely shocking in quality. If this is acceptable in the model rail scene then it needs a shake-up. This may not be representative of brand new offerings, which aren't really kits in my mind.
Quote from: RST on January 07, 2014, 10:07:51 PM
...have to say though I bought a few "kit" or "railway mouldings" last 6 months and I compare them to the model boat scene -they are absolutely shocking in quality. If this is acceptable in the model rail scene then it needs a shake-up. This may not be representative of brand new offerings, which aren't really kits in my mind.
There are a lot of very old tools and mouldings about. The costs and the tiny N gauge market (as well as the low prices people can afford) mean they are usually too expensive to replace. In addition just about everything in the tooling world departed to China which made the problem even worse. Even what remains is almost entirely oriented to 'how many thousand do you want, must be fully auto with ejector pins' and expensive high end tooling.
I don't know much about the model boat market, but from the prices I've seen there looks to be a lot more money and volume in it.
Ultimately you get what you (and everyone else) pays for. In N that ranges from
£500 for the masterworks of CJM down to cheap (and often old) white metal locomotive kits. I would definitely keep an eye on reviews and talk to other modellers - there are some quite dire white metal kits out there and equally some (sometimes very old) kits that are beautifully cast such as the old ABS models ones.
3D printing is beginning to change what is possible and commercially viable at N gauge volumes but there is a long way to go yet to solve the current cost problems with low volume plastic moulding and the like.
Alan
^^ granted and accepted, but there are some VERY tired moulds out there, we know we're not in the majority. But when I have to completely remove every detail in a kit and fabricate from scratch or parts, the N gauge world isn't that small. You do yourself injustice by accepting.
Quote from: RST on January 07, 2014, 10:46:09 PM
You do yourself injustice by accepting.
In many cases there is no alternative. You can accept an old an tired moulding and try to make the best of it or you can scratch-build. At least an old kit is usually the right sort of shape, even if you do end up having to detail it.
Also most of these kits are very much the products of cottage industry. Refusing to buy them will not help spur the development of better kits. People like Alan experimenting with 3D printing probably represent the best hope for better kits but this technology is still in its early stages.
Soft tools would meet the low demand volumes. Much quicker and significantly cheaper.
I don't think people realise just how small some of the demand is for N gauge!
Even soft tooling doesn't solve the issue, we're not talking about a 1000 sales of an item, in some cases you won't even be talking about 100! That isn't the case for everything, but it is the case for many things.
Every time the NGS invests in tooling (either for kit or commissioning a RTR model) we have to face these realities - there are some things that just will not sell sufficient volume to justify tooling and injection moulding. Some more obscure things are barely worth even making a master and casting! If someone has gone to the effort and cost of injection moulding something then they already have a degree of confidence/knowledge that their product is going to sell in significant volumes compared to an etch or casting.
Cheers, Mike
(NGS Product Development Officer)
Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 02, 2014, 09:05:17 PM
In fact I'd recommend the Parkwood class 15/16/10800 as an excellent starter for kit locomotives as well. In fact 10800 is a great starter as it fits onto the 20 chassis *and* it's black, with black bits so the only bit of painting beyond a black spraycan is the buffer beam! Modelmaster do the needed numbers for it as well.
And that's exectly what I'll be doing, once I get the body. Apart from a 7 plank wagon it'll be my first kit.
I think the biggest problem area for newbies is working out what's needed. You end up buying these paints but then realise that you also need that paint, those brushes and matt varnish, but then you need gloss varnish for the transfers (and don't get me started on working out which transfers). You work out that you need handrails and vacuum pipes, but then also that a coupling hook could fit, and that you need Klear to represent windows. And that's just skimming the surface.
I'm definitely not happy with RTR stock alone. I want the uniqueness of kits and the chance to model exactly what my layout needs, but working out what's required from a newbie's perspective is a bit of a battle, so I can see why many may take a look and baulk at the level of effort required.
QuoteQuote from: RST on Yesterday at 22:46:09
You do yourself injustice by accepting.
In many cases there is no alternative. You can accept an old an tired moulding and try to make the best of it or you can scratch-build. At least an old kit is usually the right sort of shape, even if you do end up having to detail it.
...good grief you miss my point entirely.
Quote from: RST link=topic=18540.msg188912#msg188912
date=1389134769
The N gauge world isn't that small. You do yourself injustice by accepting.
The N gauge kit world is pretty small, collectors don't generally build kits (although some collect old ones), most modellers are pure RTR - or venture out no further than things like Metcalfe card kits.
If you think you can do better then go for it. Several people on this forum and rmweb have done exactly that and released models like the Class 128 DPU.
Alan
OK, so on my Knightwing DBT:
I can accept rough castings, we all accept squadron putty hides lots of sins. We do not expect the chassis to be be wider one end and taller at the other though nor can I can accept representations of fittings be just blobs (If the blobs were the same each end and side to side then maybe) but the sales photo shows perfect results. Things like lamp irons, brake fittings etc if they can't be moulded crisp as in the photos then just remove from the mould as they're useless if mal-formed and unfillable.
Nothing wrong with kit bashing but disappointing when you almost have to start from scratch. Some moulds are old and tired yet still get punted on as new in the pics. I know the expense of making parts and maintaining moulds, but some of them need down-grading rather than punting off as good ones.
It's a small market, but we're not cheapskates. At very least check the mouldings first before they go in the bag.
Imagine you bought a moulding from NGF
Well it clearly shouldn't have gotten out if it was warped but have you checked with Knightwing as it sounds like a dud casting. I can confirm the one I got a few years back looked like the photo.
If not then I guess irs a nice 3d print project to use a couple of Dapol Gresley bogies :worried:
Alan