Do we expect too much ?

[johnlambert]

Manufacturer returns seem to be reported at 5-10% from model shops. But that doesn't count the plethora of models that are fixed by us or have faults that are never picked up on because they are bought by collectors who don't run them. Therefore, I'd suspect the quantity is significantly greater than 10% ultimately.

Cheers,
Alan

My observation (based on prices in the UK) is that German outline locos are considerably more expensive than their UK outline equivalents.  Maybe that has a bearing on the quality of the finished product?  Without properly verified data it is impossible to say.

I can't help wondering if we British are alone in this. I mean do German, French or US modellers also return one in ten of their purchases as faulty?
I honestly can't think the average German modeller (for example) would tolerate such a situation.
Why should we British outline modellers?

[D1042 Western Princess]

My observation (based on prices in the UK) is that German outline locos are considerably more expensive than their UK outline equivalents.  Maybe that has a bearing on the quality of the finished product?  Without properly verified data it is impossible to say.

While not disagreeing with you over the prices John (and in NO WAY wanting this to get political) but I do feel you have overlooked one important detail:
average wages.

In Germany it is (in euros) 46,000, in France 38,500 and in the UK 35,000 according to the latest tables on the internet.
If these are accurate then the average German is being paid around 11,000 more than the average Briton and thus can afford to pay a higher price for his locomotive!
I can't help wondering if they pay more simply because the manufacturer knows they can ask more?

[Agrippa]

The thread is heading towards  the usual discussion about costs and manufacturing
problems, I expect the Chinese wage situation will crop up again.

In Germany  for example there are about 4-5 main N gauge manufacturers,
though I'm not sure if all manufacture is done in Europe or some in China,
but there's more competition than in the UK so perhaps standards have to
be higher and maybe the locals won't accept poor quality and reliability.

[Sprintex]

The point about average incomes needs balancing by the fact that both France and Germany have higher rates of overall taxation than the UK, along with Belgium.


Paul

[belstone]

The thread is heading towards  the usual discussion about costs and manufacturing
problems, I expect the Chinese wage situation will crop up again.

Yes, we seem to have been here before, and more than once.  In terms of appearance I am in awe of current RTR locos - the latest stuff is truly "museum quality" and I don't see how they do it for the price.  Mechanisms have undoubtedly improved since the Poole Farish era - smaller yet more powerful motors, finer wheels, more pickups.  I'm not blinded by nostalgia for the old days, I can remember just how badly some of the Poole stuff ran straight out of the box.

But... I'm trying to build a model railway, not a display stand to show off the skills of Farish's toolmakers.  This is N gauge, and I defy anyone to look at my layout from a normal, sensible viewing distance (about three feet, say) and tell me whether the sandpipes have fallen off my 2MT.  And why worry about having visible inside valve gear (Farish 3F) when you are going to stick a great big huge plastic coupling on each end?  Not that having a huge amount of fine detail is a problem in itself, but the kind of photo-realism we are getting on RTR stuff nowadays just makes every other aspect of my modelling look shoddy - track, buildings, scenery, kit-built wagons etc.

Ian Futers observed a long time ago that the most convincing model railways are those where everything is done to the same (good) standard.  I think that's right, and the level of finish and detail on modern RTR is now setting a standard that is impossible for even the most gifted modeller to match in other areas.  Maybe it's just me, but looking through Railway Modeller etc there are lots of layouts in N and OO where the builders have put a lot of effort into scenery, structures etc, then just tipped a load of ready-weathered RTR stock onto the layout and it just doesn't work for me. The stock looks like it has been beamed down from another planet.

There is a solution though it might sound counter-intuitive.  To make modern RTR blend in with your layout, you need to modify it and make it a bit more rubbish to look at.  Throw the detailing pack in the bin and give the item some heavy-handed weathering.  That way it won't stand out so much.  Of course you immediately halve the value of  the loco, wagon or whatever.  But that's the thinking of a collecter, not a modeller.  Here's a loco I ruined earlier

[Agrippa]

Re Sprintex's post , yeah, it's about net disposable income after taxes and added social
security benefits so it's not  quite so simple, especially when you bring in things like
housing costs, council tax etc.

[DesertHound]

Could we perhaps just put it down to the Germans "doing things better" than us when it comes to engineering? That's a controversial statement I know, and not always the case. Just a discussion point.

Additionally (and I know we've discussed this many times before - but hey, this is a discussion forum, so let's discuss what we want), the point somebody made about where the locos are made is also an interesting one. I don't know what proportion of Fleischmann models is produced in Germany, but that might also have some bearing.

For example, given that they have tried and tested methods of production and QC in Germany, it might be easier for them to transpose that to China. Companies which completely offshore production might be more at the mercy of the producers, having "P45'd" all their own production team when they closed down their UK operations.

I have a German friend in the automotive industry who spends time in Russia / China / USA and so on and I get the impression that the German companies are very much "hands on" with their overseas operations, pretty much running the show. I'm not saying that the UK model companies are not (and I know an automotive company is slightly more complex than a model making company), but it's an interesting point for discussion.

Dan

[DesertHound]

Nice post Belstone. Perhaps what you've said sums up why I'm blinded by the old days.

In all honesty, I cannot compare the old stuff to the new stuff, it's more nostalgia and the fondness of the older mechanisms / universal parts for spares that I like.

I can see both sides of this argument, depending upon one's preferences. I agree though that you don't need a museum piece in order to make a model railway look convincing.

Dan

[Elvinley]

Either I am ridiculously unlucky or the amount of faulty locos out there is much higher than one in ten. About half the engines I get these days has some issue that needs addressing and probably 30 or 40 percent have been returned or needed serious adjustment. This used to be mainly Dapol but is Farish as well these days. The models when they work correctly are fantastic and I am more than happy with the running qualities of new Farish stuff but it is still a gamble whether you get a fully working loco free of split gears, wobbles, locking valve gear, poor pickup etc.

[PGN]

Belstone - you've hit a nail that is a particular hobby horse of mine squarely on the head!

That having been said, however, I don't go the whole way with Ian Futers. When I'm building a model, I'm not trying to produce something which, if I take a photo of it and show it to you, you'll be hard pressed to say whether you are looking at a model or the real thing. I know this is what some people set out to achieve - and good luck to them. But I build a model to be viewed as a model; and everyone who looks at it is going to know (from its size, more than anything) that it IS only a model. I model a period that nobody now living can remember and I want to give a bit of a feel of "what it was like". And if that involves mixing models finished to different standards (a Dapol LSWR M7, say, and a Union Mills 0395 class which I have repainted in LSWR goods livery myself) then I will not hesitate to do so.

Some people may not find this "convincing". Fair enough. That's their take on railway modelling. But if I were to limit myself to models finished to modern factory standards, so that everything was to the same (high) standard, then the mix of locomotives and stock available would not, to me, be a "convincing" representation of the LSWR.

What conclusions can we draw from this? Very few, I think, apart from (a) every modeller sets out to achieve something different, and sets his standards according to the object he is trying to achieve; and (b) it is therefore inappropriate to project your standards onto another modeller, and to judge the other chap's efforts according to a set of standards and assumptions that may not be appropriate to what he was trying to achieve. That would be like me watching the London marathon and declaring, loudly, "these guys aren't very good, are they? When I was an athlete, I used to be able to run a LOT faster than that". Well, yes, I could ... but that's because I was a 400 metre hurdler!!!

[belstone]

Ian Futers was never a modeller of the photo-realist kind.  His 4mm layouts in the Seventies (the ones which did more than anything else to inspire my own modelling career) were always built in a tearing hurry (a new one every year) and a lot of his techniques were decidedly "impressionist", like spraying the trackbed with matt black car paint to represent ash ballast.  But they worked because everything was done to about the same standard, so nothing stood out as being more fine-scale than anything else.  Colours were muted and subtle, and all the scenic features, buildings etc were blended into the layout and looked all "of a piece". They just looked right (from a distance) and captured the atmosphere of rural Northumbrian branch lines like nothing else I have seen since. 

I'm taking that argument to its logical conclusion with my next layout by trying to do the whole thing with 1980s era products and techniques.  I want to see if I can capture that elusive atmosphere without super-detailed locos, stock, buildings or anything else. (And also I'm fed up with the fragility and finickiness of recent RTR steam locos.)

But it's only a hobby and of course there is no single "right" approach.  I remember the 16.5 vs 18.83 "gauge wars" of the late Seventies, and without any great affection.  There is nothing more ridiculous IMHO than grown men arguing over toy trains.

[Sprintex]

There is nothing more ridiculous IMHO than grown men arguing over toy trains.

Amen to that


Paul

[DesertHound]

Belstone, I'd love to see some pictures of what you've modelled so far, inspired by Mr Futer. Or, perhaps, some links to Mr Futer's work.

I'm also intrigued by your approach to using 1980's products - that really does bring another dimension to the hobby and reminds me of my own interest in older stock. There's something in the hobby for everybody and we're all different, which, I guess, is why grown men argue about toy trains 

Also, what is your basis for ascertaining which products and techniques are 1980's? Is it from your own knowledge and experience?

Cracking idea.

Dan

[belstone]

Belstone, I'd love o see some pictures of what you've modellers so far, inspired by Mr Futer. Or, perhaps, some links to Mr Futer's work.

I'm also intrigued by your approach to using 1980's products - that really does bring another dimension to the hobby and reminds me of my own interest in older stock. There's something in the hobby for everybody and we're all different, which, I guess, is why grown men argue about toy trains 

Also, what is your basis for ascertaining which products and techniques are 1980's? Is it from your own knowledge and experience?

Cracking idea.

Dan

You'd need to track down various copies of Railway Modeller from around 1977-78 to see the Futers layouts (Longwitton etc) in all their glory.  I don't think there are any photos on the Internet.  I have a thread going (though not updated for a while) on my own efforts in the field of North British branch lines:  http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=14050

Defining 1980s products - I'm not going to be too rigid about this, but basically Poole Farish, Minitrix, Peco and kits based on the above.  I've already decided to cheat by using Peco Code 55 track because I need a single slip, and the prospect of hacking one out of two Code 80 points and a diamond crossing (which is how you would have done it in the old days) is just too scary to think about. Also Code 55 was available in the late 1980s, but not the single slip.

I reckon the general standard of scenic modelling has improved since the 80s, but I'm not sure why asI can't think of  any obvious new scenic products that would make a big difference.  Woodland Scenics materials were certainly available back then, but most layouts still used bright green sawdust and lichen for everything.

[austinbob]

There is nothing more ridiculous IMHO than grown men arguing over toy trains.

Amen to that


Paul

No more ridiculous than arguing about the best fast car or who makes the best Cornish pasty or most other topics for discussion/argument. Better than robbing old ladies or joining terrorist groups don't you think?