My new Farish J39 is a work of art, with more separately applied handrails, pipes and other tiny details than I would expect even on a OO gauge loco. But in the bottom of the box was a small piece of carefully bent wire. It looks like a footstep or something similar and I assume it has fallen off the J39 in transit.
I have looked very carefully all over the loco and cannot see anywhere that this little step might fit. The loco doesn't look as though there is anything missing. And that makes me wonder - is this move towards superdetailed RTR models getting out of hand? All these little pieces of wire cost money, pushing up the price of the final model, which people then run on code 80 track alongside 1970s Lima and Minitrix relics... What is driving this move towards ever higher levels of detail? Is it us, the modellers, demanding separately fitted everything? The impression I get is that most of us would be happy with less finely detailed steam locos that actually ran properly out of the box. (None of my new Farish locos have the slow speed performance to match their looks.) Would be interested to know other people's views on this - perhaps it is just me that is out of step.
Unfortunately it is the modellers that have demanded more detail, which then pushes the price up. The same is largely true for the lack of pulling ability - see-through spoked wheels and space under boilers on steamers all take away places where weight used to be, likewise but to a lesser extent with lights in diesels. If anything supplying a "bits bag" goes some way to keeping the price down as you're not paying someone to fit them ;)
It would be nice if we had two ranges like there are for some 00 models: one up-to-the-minute highly detailed range with prices to match for those that wish to pay for it, and a cheaper old-model range with less detail for those not worried about such things. Sadly the market for British N gauge isn't large enough to support a dual range like this :(
Paul
On phone at moment but I can see the sense in this thread. I love the new detail on current models, but it is SO FRAGILE! I have lost a buffer on me Warship and I noticed when I returned my beloved BP set to it's box after a preliminary run, I'd managed to lose some exhaust pipes.
Just to lob another pebble into the pond, I have been thinking for some time now about the way our prized purchases are packaged and just how much the packaging can contribute towards damage. The older type of shaped sponge wrapping (grey in the case of Farish and cream/black in the case of Dapol) sometimes meant the model was a very tight fit and great care had to be taken when pushing the model from the packaging so as to avoid snapping detail off. Likewise, when returning said model to the fitted sponge, pushing it into a tight space made me wonder if this was doing the pickups any good, as I have used something for a running session but the next time it came out it just wouldn't run :confused2:. Times then moved on to clear plastic with the model held firmly in place top and bottom and a fold over lip to keep everything in place, the base of the plastic usually being shaped to accept front and rear pony trucks etc. This, it seemed to me, was the best compromise.
Now we have a shaped plastic tray which the model lies in with a shaped lid to cover that tray - all contained in the usual rectangular beefy plastic box.
Yes - I want the detail on my stock and am happy to pay the going rate for that detail, but I also want ease of access to it such that I don't cause damage to something I'm paying a premium for.
Hope this is still within the subject of the thread :hmmm:
Quote from: belstone on April 14, 2014, 08:05:13 AM
And that makes me wonder - is this move towards superdetailed RTR models getting out of hand? All these little pieces of wire cost money, pushing up the price of the final model, which people then run on code 80 track alongside 1970s Lima and Minitrix relics... What is driving this move towards ever higher levels of detail? Is it us, the modellers, demanding separately fitted everything? The impression I get is that most of us would be happy with less finely detailed steam locos that actually ran properly out of the box. (None of my new Farish locos have the slow speed performance to match their looks.) Would be interested to know other people's views on this - perhaps it is just me that is out of step.
Surely the question is why people still use code 80 or 70s relics? OK, I can understand if you have a lot of either but most people won't particularly new entrants to the hobby.
This question pops up sporadically and my answer is the same - please let's no go back to poorer standards and quality.
If N gauge wants to be taken seriously (by the modelling community and the manufacturers) we need to have good quality (and I agree that means running as well as looks). We also need to be realistic and accept we are competing for the manufacturers' investments and for modellers to choose N vs other scales - if we go back to poorer quality then we shrink the market (though that is obviously a balance with price!).
If the running quality of new locos is poor then send them back - I can't say (as a D&E modeller) that this has been my experience. For example: my new 08 actually runs over points without stalling; I have 37s and 47s which actually look like the real thing (and aren't compromised on looks or chassis) etc.
Cheers, Mike
Maybe I've been lucky with my new locos and unlucky with my old ones but I think N gauge locos and stock are better - on the whole - than they've ever been.
I've owned four or five Poole-Farish designed large steam locos (Crab, 2 Halls and a Castle) and only one of those (the Crab) is a decent runner, one Hall is awaiting a trip to BR Lines to see if it can be improved and the others were sold off as I was never happy with them. They didn't run well and they didn't look good and my attempts at improving them did not succeed. I don't have a Dapol Hall but I have other comparable steam locos which, although still flawed, are way better than the Poole relics. And recently I bought a Bachman Farish Standard 5MT which is a world away from the old stuff both for detail and running quality - I shouldn't ask a large steam loco to crawl through Settrack points but the 5MT will where others won't.
I'd like to expand but I don't have time at the moment. Yes there is still room for improvement, particularly in build quality and, possibly, pulling power (I don't run long trains or have gradients so i haven't had any problems) but as the saying goes, we've never had it so good. And if you want simple model locos with great pulling power I'm sure Colin from Union Mills will welcome your order :)
Of course the J39 is one of the few locos where you have that choice. The Union Mills one or the Farish....
While I respect people having different views and indeed potentially different needs, I for one fundamentally disagree with any thoughts of regressing from the standards of detail we are now seeing. I accept that poor asembly may be an issue in your case (and others too), but with careful handling so far none of the fine detail has fallen off any of mine.
The J39 is indeed a work of art (I now have all four BR ones) and mine all run as well as they look. The tender drive has more than adequate power for prototypical trains and indeed I had one of my B1s with an identical mechanism pulling over 20 coaches. Slow running too is good, if not quite up to the standard of the new coreless motors.
Let's then take another example, the new Farish Ivatt 2MT tender loco. Pinpoint pickup on the tender mean that even the tender wheel spokes are see through, and that loco will easily pull a prototypical train with slow running as good as anything I have seen from any manufacturer. It too is exquisitely detailed and includes a full cab backhead - no motor protrusion anywhwere and just part of the gearbox below the boiler. Compare that to the ancient Minitrix Ivatt 2-6-0 - well actually it is probably best not to...the new one is absolutely light years ahead.
Same is true comparing the above mentioned Farish J39 with Union Mills's. The new model blows the old one away in just about every respect except I suspect in an outright haulage "showdown". This is probably why the UM one (Solid well proportioned and well engineered model though it unquestionably is) no longer appears in UM's most recent lists.
As regards Code 80 track, a simple solution is not to use it. Peco have done their Code 55 for years now, or even better Wayne Kinney's superb code 40 "Finetrax" range which is just taking off.
I would personally hate to see any move towards a Hornby type "Design Clever" (i.e. design cheap) philosophy, and in 00 it appears not to have too many supporters either.
As for a range of less detailed cheaper (and inferior) models, taking the old versus new Farish "Jinty" as an example there is actually very little difference in price between the new and former models, and personally I very much doubt there would be any huge savings in costs to pass on to consumers.
So for me, I pray we will see existing standards maintained and surpassed but with better assembly and QC.
Regards
Roy
Quote from: belstone on April 14, 2014, 08:05:13 AM
My new Farish J39 is a work of art, with more separately applied handrails, pipes and other tiny details than I would expect even on a OO gauge loco. But in the bottom of the box was a small piece of carefully bent wire. It looks like a footstep or something similar and I assume it has fallen off the J39 in transit.
I have looked very carefully all over the loco and cannot see anywhere that this little step might fit. The loco doesn't look as though there is anything missing. And that makes me wonder - is this move towards superdetailed RTR models getting out of hand? All these little pieces of wire cost money, pushing up the price of the final model, which people then run on code 80 track alongside 1970s Lima and Minitrix relics... What is driving this move towards ever higher levels of detail? Is it us, the modellers, demanding separately fitted everything? The impression I get is that most of us would be happy with less finely detailed steam locos that actually ran properly out of the box. (None of my new Farish locos have the slow speed performance to match their looks.) Would be interested to know other people's views on this - perhaps it is just me that is out of step.
Quote from: Roy L S on April 14, 2014, 05:44:32 PM
I would personally hate to see any move towards a Hornby type "Design Clever" (i.e. design cheap) philosophy, and in 00 it appears not to have too many supporters either.
They are not though aimed at "hard core" modellers. Hornby Railroad seems to be doing quite nicely so it's pleasing someone. There are lots of reasons robust models can be better - the obvious one being putting them in the hands of children.
Alan
Quote from: EtchedPixels on April 14, 2014, 06:03:39 PM
Quote from: Roy L S on April 14, 2014, 05:44:32 PM
I would personally hate to see any move towards a Hornby type "Design Clever" (i.e. design cheap) philosophy, and in 00 it appears not to have too many supporters either.
They are not though aimed at "hard core" modellers. Hornby Railroad seems to be doing quite nicely so it's pleasing someone. There are lots of reasons robust models can be better - the obvious one being putting them in the hands of children.
Alan
"Design Clever" is also applied in some of the more recent the "Maistream" range - for example the 2BIL has moulded on roof ventilators, even the non "Railroad" Duke of Glouecster has all the ejector pipework moulded on.
Regards
Roy
Yes, separately fitted sandbox pipes are a marvellous thing: but at normal viewing distances, how many people will spot whether they are there or not? For a model to be convincing I think there are three key requirements. Firstly the dimensions must be absolutely spot on, so that the shape and proportions are right. That is why I sold my Union Mills J39 the moment the Farish one came out. Too tall, too narrow, undersized wheels.
Secondly, numbers and emblems in the correct size and style, and paint in the right shade.
And thirdly, impeccable slow running with no wobbles, lurches or hiccups. It's hard enough to create the impression of a hundred ton locomotive in 1:148 scale as it is, and anything less than perfectly smooth slow speed running totally destroys the illusion, for me at least.
So two out of three ain't bad I suppose. We've come a long way since the bad old days when Farish and Minitrix would butcher the dimensions of loco bodies to fit whatever chassis they had available, but when I find myself using my (admittedly Mashima-motored) Minitrix Ivatt 2MT for delayed uncoupling tests, because it runs better than any of the newer stuff, I can't help feeling something is not quite right.
I'm pretty sure I know what is up with my two J39s (thanks to this forum). Placed on a sheet of glass, the tender rocks like a pub table. Putting a couple of beermats under one of the wheels is not an option, so I'll try taking them to bits and squaring up the chassis (and try not to break too many fine details in the process). The Ivatts probably just need running in. Hopefully.
But can I build a layout good enough to do justice to the extraordinary amount of fine detail on these locos? Not a hope. I am at best a very average modeller, and everything I build is going to look crude and clumsy in comparison. I suppose that's what is bothering me: locos that are far more finely detailed and beautifully finished than the layout they will run on, state of the art in terms of appearance but which don't do the one thing I really need them to do - run consistently and smoothly at shunting speeds.
Quote from: red_death on April 14, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
Surely the question is why people still use code 80 or 70s relics? OK, I can understand if you have a lot of either but most people won't particularly new entrants to the hobby.
And that
last phrase is
exactly why it stays around ... People new to this gauge get the track from main suppliers who stock Peco 80 and sometimes 55 -
and nothing else. You may get the shop advising newcomers to go 55 as it's more prototypical, but that would be uncommon - and of course there is no advice on a web purchase.
Most new entrants will likely start with a GraFar set, and sometimes with a Peco track set too. They are
already using legacy track, and are unlikely to go "you know, this track is crap - I'll spend lots of money on Code 55 or even 40 to replace it all" unless the hobby
really catches with them. I speak from experience; this is how I began (a surprise present a couple of Christmas's ago of a GraFar set & a Peco track set).
Yes, 55 is better, and 40 better still - but until they become mainstream (and until GraFar and Dapol release sets with 55, you can't say they are there yet) Code 80 is around & will be for many years yet, with 55 and (to a lesser extent) 40 being used by the hardcore.
You may not like it (and from reading your post, you evidently don't), but that is life ...
Mike
Code 80 Settrack doesn't have to look terrible. In the words of the great philosopher, "It aint what you do, it's the way that you do it".
When painted and ballasted code 80 can look pretty good; I've had positive feedback about the appearance of my Settrack. There is a lot to be said for track that just slots together, for a beginner it is a great way to build confidence and get something running. Although I do wish I'd known about Kato track...
Also, I think belstone's list of three key requirements is pretty much spot on. How many models achieve three out of three is debatable. But, hopefully, manufacturers will listen to customer feedback and things will improve.
I always use Setrack, and source my locos and rolling stock from toy fairs and traders at exhibitions. As a result, I am running "old, poorly running and poorly detailed" stock. Well, it suits me and my pocket, mainly works (as well or better than some new locos, judging by other threads), and does what I want.
The perceived fragility of new models makes me think they should be placed in a display cabinet, to be studied for their accuracy and fine lines, rather than put on a track and used.
I changed to n gauge about 25 years ago when I had a choice Poole built or Minitrix if it could be found, I'm not sure about Union Mills at that time but I wasn't aware of it. True there were a number of body kits but the used chassis from the above.
The real problem was that I was only going to Southern Region Steam, so I had a wonderful choice. The unrebuilt Bullied Pacific was out of production but could still be found on sale. The only other ready to run locos available were the GF Standard 2-6-4T and Minitrix 2-6-2T. A few suitable Southern and Standard body kits were available.
Coaching stock was even worse with only the 2 types of GF mainline coach or a MK1 BCK, RMB and SK, hardly suitable types for prototypical formations.
It was therefore good news when Dapol and Bachmann started producing better detailed models. Er well they look good but not all dimensions are correct. They sometimes run well, especially if used every few days, but don't expect all the pick-ups to work or wheels not to wobble. What is the spares situation like, although stripping them is a nightmare, certainly not a 30 minute complete strip down, clean and oil like a Poole chassis even with valve gear. As Kipper said they better placed in a display cabinet. I still use them but I also run my old locos and wonder if the Chinese models will still be running in 25 years.
The one good thing is that I can now run correct coach formations and a couple of EMU's. Yes despite comments made about 8 months ago my 2BIL is nearly complete.
Am I satisfied running old poorly detailed models, yes if the prototype meets my needs and meets my high requirements for controlability and haulage. After all when they are on the layout I cant see sand pipes, brake gear and other miniscule fittings.
Do I return models that do not run correctly, yes I do but often the replacement is no better.
As I a serious modeller yes definitely despite several comments on this thread.
Finally I cant understand if they are not up to current standards why so many people are raving about Union Mills locos or are there more important things than fine details.
Dodger
UM models are not highly detailed but run straight from the box and appear to be pretty reliable,
simple con rods and inside cylinders, and you can always add your own details and weathering etc.
Also not expensive unless you buy them from Ebay. You pay your money and take your choice.
Decided to apply a little science to assess slow running between old and new steam locos. I devised a little experiment on my layout to time how slowly locos could successfully travel along a 15-inch straight, level piece of track. I ran both forwards and backwards and the results are a rough average. The greater the time the better the low-speed running. All using a Gaugemaster Combi small DC controller.
Dapol Pannier - GWR Green - 16 seconds - not great
Dapol Pannier - BR Black early crest - 10 seconds - smooth
Dapol Prarie - GWR Green - 15 seconds - not great
Graham Farish (Poole) - 94xx Pannier - 6 seconds - not great
Graham Farish (Poole) - Prarie - BR Green Early Crest - 19 seconds - smooth
Graham Farish (Poole) - Crab - Black Early Crest - 11 seconds - better forward than in reverse
Graham Farish (Bachman) - Fairburn 2-6-4 tank - 30 seconds - super smooth
Graham Farish (Bachman) - Class 08 - 17 seconds - bit jerky
Peco - Collet 0-6-0 Goods - 30 seconds - noisy but fairly smooth and needed a couple of runs to loosen up
Ixon - Manor (Foxcote Manor) - 55 seconds - smooth
Dapol - 28xx - 90 seconds - smooth better in reverse
Graham Farish (Bachman) - 5MT - 50 seconds - a little bit lumpy
Not sure if this proves anything. The Graham Farish Prarie was better than I expected, the Dapol panniers were worse. The 08 was a bit of a disappointment but I can't believe how slowly the 28xx will crawl.
I think it shows that good low-speed running isn't necessarily exclusive to new locos but it does seem that smaller locos aren't as good as their bigger brothers.
Quote from: newportnobby on April 14, 2014, 09:46:07 AM
Yes - I want the detail on my stock and am happy to pay the going rate for that detail, but I also want ease of access to it such that I don't cause damage to something I'm paying a premium for.
Hope this is still within the subject of the thread :hmmm:
Yes, it probably is drifting a little, but I really do think that the products are over-packaged. I know for definite that I broke a buffer getting that Warship out of the box.
Quote from: red_death on April 14, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
Surely the question is why people still use code 80 or 70s relics? OK, I can understand if you have a lot of either but most people won't particularly new entrants to the hobby.
I am unfortunately one of those folk who are stuck with code 80, Mike, but I am all in favour of lifting the game and am gradually replacing old stock. As said in a post earlier, code 80 can look OK with careful work. A layout in the 2014 RM Annual springs to mind (pages 6,7 &11).... that track looks OK to my eyes - it's code 80 AND on foam underlay!!!
George
Quote from: belstone on April 14, 2014, 07:01:08 PM
Yes, separately fitted sandbox pipes are a marvellous thing: but at normal viewing distances, how many people will spot whether they are there or not? For a model to be convincing I think there are three key requirements. Firstly the dimensions must be absolutely spot on, so that the shape and proportions are right. That is why I sold my Union Mills J39 the moment the Farish one came out. Too tall, too narrow, undersized wheels.
Secondly, numbers and emblems in the correct size and style, and paint in the right shade.
And thirdly, impeccable slow running with no wobbles, lurches or hiccups. It's hard enough to create the impression of a hundred ton locomotive in 1:148 scale as it is, and anything less than perfectly smooth slow speed running totally destroys the illusion, for me at least.
So two out of three ain't bad I suppose. We've come a long way since the bad old days when Farish and Minitrix would butcher the dimensions of loco bodies to fit whatever chassis they had available, but when I find myself using my (admittedly Mashima-motored) Minitrix Ivatt 2MT for delayed uncoupling tests, because it runs better than any of the newer stuff, I can't help feeling something is not quite right.
I'm pretty sure I know what is up with my two J39s (thanks to this forum). Placed on a sheet of glass, the tender rocks like a pub table. Putting a couple of beermats under one of the wheels is not an option, so I'll try taking them to bits and squaring up the chassis (and try not to break too many fine details in the process). The Ivatts probably just need running in. Hopefully.
But can I build a layout good enough to do justice to the extraordinary amount of fine detail on these locos? Not a hope. I am at best a very average modeller, and everything I build is going to look crude and clumsy in comparison. I suppose that's what is bothering me: locos that are far more finely detailed and beautifully finished than the layout they will run on, state of the art in terms of appearance but which don't do the one thing I really need them to do - run consistently and smoothly at shunting speeds.
I must be very lucky, most of my recent Farish releases do give me 3 out of 3, the WD's slow running is just incredible, the Ivatt's too.
I currently have one of my J39s pulling a 20 wagon part fitted freight, and it plods along reliably quietly and ultra smoothly at a suitable scale speed, including over dead frog settrack points in the fiddle-yard.
Another J39 was employed recently on my small exhibition layout where I use Dapol easi-shunts. Again no problem with slow reliable running over the points into the yard or accurate positioning to uncouple.
I do agree that it is getting harder for my own modelling to get anywhere near these recent standards and for that reason I tend to make less wagon/loco kits etc myself but I cannot "buy" that as a reason to "dumb down" the current quality of the RTR products to something less.
Roy
Quote from: dodger on April 14, 2014, 10:32:16 PM
Finally I cant understand if they are not up to current standards why so many people are raving about Union Mills locos or are there more important things than fine details.
Dodger
Hi Dodger
A number of reasons why they remain popular notwithstanding limited detail and use of "generic" tenders in some cases: -
- Reasonably priced and very solid and well engineered.
- Run smoothly and generally reliably.
- Phenomenal haulage capacity.
However probably more importantly Colin Heard is also canny enough to select prototypes which are highly unlikely to feature in either Dapol or Farish's n gauge ranges (the only exception to date is the J39, and unsurprisingly that no longer appears in the UM range). So the choice otherwise is kit or scratch build.
Regards
Roy
That has always been a major draw card for Union Mills. You won't find those locos rtr anywhere else. Plus, they are good models that can be made better, which is an interesting project in itself for many modellers.
one change I would like to see is older steam models re issued with 'see through' spoke wheels...
it should not cost the earth but would be a big improvement
That's not a bad idea at all, but another thing that let those old things down was that bright copper pickup strip behind the wheels.
But yeah, putting the see through spokes in would be an improvement.... the thing is, would it really be worth the trouble in the long run in the light of sales of those old models.
Quote from: fisherman on April 15, 2014, 12:23:02 PM
one change I would like to see is older steam models re issued with 'see through' spoke wheels...
it should not cost the earth but would be a big improvement
I doubt Bachmann would bother - they'd need to retool the pickups too as they ran on the wheel backs.
I think they'd spend their investment now on fully retooled models - it's probably not economical to retool parts of old models, as the original tooling that's still used will be more worn and may not have much more life left in it (remember, some of these tools are over 30 years old now).
Cheers,
Alan
Since I run diesel outline, my experience does not really count for much of the steam outline modelers. Almost all of my models have run out of the box and after running in, fitting decoders and adjusting cv's they are smooth and OK but a couple jerk to a stop more quickly than I would like. (They're getting better with more running !)
I would like to see Union Mills produce some diesels following their steam outline policy - after all there are less protrusions and fine detail on diesels anyway so the lack of detail would probably not be a problem.
I'm happy with the models so far, my biggest concern is the length of time between announcement and actual availability but this is a totally new topic.
talking of detail on Union Mills models , it would be nice to see GT3 modelled , the lack of detail would be minimal .
If you can see it at normal viewing distance it should be fitteed, there are a few things I do to my UM locos, fit vac pipes, fit SR head codes, thin the coupling rods. I find a light scraping of the paint over the handrails to show bare metal, or using a fine paint stick in silver or gold can work, definitely easier than drilling for and fitting hand rail knobs and wire.
I've been running N gauge for almost 40 years (started late '74) I've probaby run more hacked, kit bashed or scratch built stock than most, my excuse is I model the SR, and until UM and Dapol came along the only RTR SR locos were Spam Cans, so it had to be kits or hacks.
Unfortunately this tends to make me somewhat annoyed at some of the opinions and whigeing expressed in threads like this.
Be thankful for what you have, and do the best you can with what is available.
I'm quite happy with Code 80... shiny rails, the appropriate distance apart.. with sleepers... :shrug
:laughabovepost: :laughabovepost: :laughabovepost:
As someone who is stuck with code 80, I like that!! :thumbsup:
Quote from: mr bachmann on April 15, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
talking of detail on Union Mills models , it would be nice to see GT3 modelled , the lack of detail would be minimal .
That's a great idea. As you say, detail would be minimal and an it would make an excellent project for Union Mills (IMHO, at least).
Quote from: red_death on April 14, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
Surely the question is why people still use code 80?
The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve ;)
I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful :no:
Paul
Quote from: Sprintex on April 16, 2014, 05:36:40 AM
Quote from: red_death on April 14, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
Surely the question is why people still use code 80?
The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve ;)
I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful :no:
Paul
Hi Paul
In the context of this thread with due respect I do not think the question is elitist, I think it is quite relevant, albeit perhaps the question should be put to Peco (And other track manufacturers) rather than fellow modellers who if they chose to use settrack as you rightly point out is most likely because they have no choice.
Code 55 flexi has been around for years now, with a reasonable range of points, so given the quantum leap in the quality and fineness of models in recent years, why has Peco not by now introduced a new range of Code 55 Settrack that could be included in starter sets so that the new entrant to the scale has something finer to start with?
I suspect I can answer the question myself: -
1) Complacency - people still buy code 80 Settrack because there is nothing else - no competing product.
2) Cost and return on investment - if Settrack is still selling well why bother.
Hands up who would use Code 55 Settrack if it were available at a reasonably comparable cost... Me in my fiddle yard (Where I have needed to use 9 inch radius points) for one, not least because it is more robust than code 80.
Regards
Roy
Quote from: Roy L S on April 16, 2014, 09:15:34 AM
Quote from: Sprintex on April 16, 2014, 05:36:40 AM
Quote from: red_death on April 14, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
Surely the question is why people still use code 80?
The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve ;)
I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful :no:
Paul
Hi Paul
In the context of this thread with due respect I do not think the question is elitist, I think it is quite relevant, albeit perhaps the question should be put to Peco (And other track manufacturers) rather than fellow modellers ...
If the question was "why do Peco (or other manufacturers) still make code 80?" then that is a fair point, but it wasn't, it was questioning why people still use it. We have to remember that not everyone has the patience, dexterity or confidence to lay code 55 flexi, especially first time out, so Code 80 Setrack or other similar systems (I'm assuming Kato and others are also code 80, not used them?) offer a simpler method of achieving a smooth-running layout and can be made to look just as realistic as code 55 with careful ballasting and weathering ;)
Just to add a personal perspective I can understand why people wouldn't bother with code 55 as I feel exactly the same about the "build your own track" concept - too much hassle for me when an acceptable alternative is available, albeit not 100% scale-authentic :) Each to their own.
Paul
I'm on phone at moment so am a one eyed one fingered typist... amazing that I can even do that, given me age.
As someone who is either stuck with code 80 or start again, I find the whole 55-80 thing tiresome.
Let's make our model railways be fun.
Quote from: Sprintex on April 16, 2014, 05:36:40 AM
Quote from: red_death on April 14, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
Surely the question is why people still use code 80?
The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve ;)
I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful :no:
There is nothing elitist in questioning why people still use a system that even Peco made largely unnecessary 25+ years ago! In a debate about whether there is too much detail on modern locos then track systems are relevant.
It is a shame that you have to make it so divisive. ???
I think it is a shame that Peco never introduced fixed radius curves for code 55, but it is pretty easy to mix and match code 55 for visible areas and use set track for the curves.
You can make code 80 look better, but it won't look as good as similarly treated code 55 - how could it? The rail height is overscale - even some of the OO track (some code 75) is finer than code 80! But the real comparison is with something like Finetrax where it becomes very obvious that it is actually the sleeper spacing (and size to a lesser extent) which is the main failing of Peco track. There is nothing elitist about that, it is simply reality. Whether it is important to you I agree is entirely subjective - we all have our own areas of interest.
This really comes to the nub of the question about detail, whether it is detail of track or stock etc, which is what people want out of their modelling. There is no right or wrong answer and the answers will be very individual. Everyone accepts different compromises, but at least be open and honest about it.
My point about N being in competition with other scales for money from the manufacturers and customers is relevant and turning a blind eye to the great progress that has been made in all scales does no one any favours.
Mike
Quote from: Bealman on April 16, 2014, 11:02:38 AM
I'm on phone at moment so am a one eyed one fingered typist... amazing that I can even do that, given me age.
As someone who is either stuck with code 80 or start again, I find the whole 55-80 thing tiresome.
Let's make our model railways be fun.
I quote myself. The whole thing is tiresome and I think the OP was talking models, not TRACK.
There is a "lot" of detail in GT3 the moment you start looking at it carefully - especially all those grilles
Well, this is all getting a bit out of hand. Some like well detailed (and expensive) models, some are happy with lesser detail. Some like code 80 track, some code 55, and others are happy with Kato track. Some will not like any UK outline, but buy european or US outline (as it is truer to scale - allegedly). We all have our reasons for doing what we do (like we all drive different cars), so let us all be happy in our own way.
I see that even the Flat Earth Society is getting a slagging off in the NGS magazine, as some of the "layout on a door" designs do not have inclines!!!!
It seems That there are 3 schools of thought :
1) my layout is a back drop for my locos, so I'm happy with super detailled locos on set track
2) my layout is a scénique work of art and as long as everything looks OK at "normal viewing distance". I'm happy
3) I'm a perfectionnist - I want super détailléd locos and code 40 track.
I think That We should accept That all 3 approaches are equallly valid on this forum
Best regards,
Joe
Quote from: red_death on April 16, 2014, 11:30:10 AM
questioning why people still use a system that even Peco made largely unnecessary 25+ years ago!
If it's unnecessary, it begs the question why they still make large quantities of it ...
Obviously, they feel it
is necessary ... and so do the people buying it ... else it wouldn't sell very well & Peco would drop it as they're not going to make things to lose money on ...
I'm looping forward to the forthcoming curved settrack points !
Best regards,
Joe