Every once in a while a modeller comes up with a brilliant idea to improve finescale loco kits. All he has to do, he thinks, is to make a kit which consists of exact scale replicas of all the parts of his chosen machine and people will flock to buy it. So he invests in a new computer, CAD software, buys some GA drawings from the NRM and spends a not inconsiderable time drawing all the components at full scale. In time etchings and other components are produced, a test build is done and photos taken of it. And eventually boxes are filled, orders received, cheques cashed and everyone is happy.

Except…..

As soon as the first adopters start work on building their models, then it is obvious that there is a problem. And the reason is not hard to find. Full sized mainline locos are designed to negotiate a minimum 4½ chain radius curve dead slow. Running lines less than 10 chains radius have to be fitted with checkrails. That is 1.2 m (3’11”) and 2.6 m (8’8”) in 4 mm scale. There are just not that many people with this amount of space, most layouts seem to have a minimum radius somewhere between 3 and 4 feet. Kit designers who ignore this fact leave the builder to face an awkward and time consuming rebuild of the frames just to enable the loco to run on his layout. Of course the model will look the part and many will be taken in by the photographs, without bothering to ask how easy it is to build or how well it will run. The problem goes much deeper than a few difficult kits. There is a perception amongst many modellers that finescale, and in particular P4 modelling is more difficult, more hassle, than the modelling they indulge in. For the most part this perception has little basis in reality, rolling stock is the same in all 4 mm scale gauges, track work is not very much more difficult to build in P4 than in OO, but loco kits? It seems to me that whenever a new ‘museum quality’ loco kit comes on the market, one look at the sheets of etching and instructions is enough to put off a large proportion of potential new recruits to finescale modelling.

There is a widespread belief amongst many in the hobby that players in the cottage industry part of the hobby should not criticised. It is particularly strong among magazine editors and those who run internet forums and does a disservice to both modellers and manufacturers. For modellers there is a well known phenomenon of the ‘maturing cabinet’. This is where a kit is bought and the modeller does not have enough confidence in his building skills and so it remains unbuilt. Or worse, the kit is started and work stops when some problem in the construction which stems from a design flaw in the kit is interpreted as a lack of skill by the builder. Given that the vast majority of complex kits are not going to be finished for many years this can lead the more naïve manufacturers into perpetuating less than ideal design work long after it could have been improved. In addition cynical manufacturers have been known to exploit the fact that kits are not built quickly, in order to put on the market products which have had very little chance of ever being able to be built.

One of the things I was taught at Art College was that the only way to improve your design work was to be able to handle criticism. That meant not only to take cognisance of criticism of your own work but also to be able to make constructive criticism of that of others. In this way, so the theory went, everyone would use the collective wisdom of the group to improve their designs. In the model railway world, criticism, constructive or otherwise, is positively frowned upon. This leaves any manufacturer with very little incentive to improve designs or innovate. What is not helpful is ‘the chorus’ with their ill-informed praise for just about anything that comes on the market. Comments from those who are confident enough to be able to work through any problems they find are only useful in catching execution errors. The information that is most useful to the kit designer is why and at what point did this person give up on this kit, because this can point to errors in the design philosophy. Armed with such information a designer can then usefully modify his work to mitigate such failures. If there is any truth in the belief, common in the trade, that only about 20% of kits ever get finished, then there would seem to be a massive deficit in the understanding that designers and manufacturers have in the ability of their customers to deal with problems involved in building their kits.

In a climate where criticism of products is freely given and acted on by manufacturers, then, contrary to received opinion, those manufacturers who do act on the criticisms will see their sales increase, because if the customers have the confidence that they can build any of the kits they buy in a reasonable time, they are more likely to make repeat purchases.