On another forum a member started a thread on detail faults, particularly Hornby, he complained that :
- Greater Anglia Class 153
Mix up in the colour of the lettering between blue and grey
- LNER A3 Class "Book Law"
LNER not in line with loco number
- BR Blue HST
Cantrail stripe added and black lettering
- BR Intercity HST
Intercity branding in the wrong colour
- 2014 great goodbye A4s (UPDATED)
Incorrect lettering alingnment
I responded by saying that "The shades of GWR green vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, and I'm sure some of the boilers don't have the correct number of rivets, and I'm almost positive the crank rods had cotter pins on the real thing, not countersunk screws".
This has led me to think that people may be expecting too much in a model, which if you include a DCC decoder is available for around £150.
If you really want to there is always the upgrade kits which enable the most ardent of rivet counters to make the model more like a replica than a model.
Do we as consumers expect too much, then when manufacturers respond with even more detail we shun the price.
If you want a "replica" there are specialists out there who build and sell them, but at over £2k each they are out of my price range, but I would never complain about them because of that.
On the one hand, consumer pressure is good otherwise we'd still be enjoying pancake motors and pizza-cutter wheels. On the other hand, sometimes I feel sorry for the manufacturers, especially with the huge range of constantly changing variations of post-privatisation livery.
Personally I'm happy when something I buy "looks right" overall, even if the purple is slightly the wrong shade and the running number is a few scale cm off. I'd rather not pay a premium to ensure the model has the exact same jumper configuration as it did between March 37th and September 50th 19-elventy-3; if I needed that level of detail I'd prefer to have a reasonably-priced range of models suitable for after-parts addition as required.
A lot of modellers (or collectors) seem to want everything bang on, and for not a lot of money.
I think that getting the overall shape of the model is botherable, preferably to end up looking like the prototype it is meant to look like.
After that, I'd like people to think about the realistic settings they run the trains in and on.
For me if it looks right and runs well it is more important than having every detail right.
It's not expecting too much, just wantlng stuff to be realistic,
reliable and at a fair price.
I've said many times on this forum... we're just big boys & girls playing with trains. Some folk take it far too seriously, that being a reason (not the only one) I dropped out of BRMA a long time ago.
Quote from: Agrippa on July 09, 2015, 02:06:18 AM
It's not expecting too much, just wantlng stuff to be realistic, reliable and at a fair price.
Pick two. All three is where the problem arises.
- Realistic and reliable will be expensive (see pretty much any Fleischmann model for example).
- Cheap and reliable will have to make compromises in terms of detailing (Union Mills for example).
- And getting all the details right while keeping costs down can mean compromises in terms of the internal mechanics, whether durability, performance or reliability (the Dapol 9F springs to mind here).
It's called the "iron triangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle)" and is a well known problem in all sorts of businesses.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: Graham Walters on July 08, 2015, 10:17:44 PM
Do we expect too much ?
Yes in most cases, whether regarding toy trains or anything else! It's the way things are now, people 'expect' perfection for minimal outlay. See it everywhere you look now whether it's goods or services, and most serial-moaners don't stop to think that there's some poor sod on the receiving end that is only doing a job to pay the mortgage/rent/bills just the same as them :no:
Paul
I'll be brutally blunt here - I know there are many members into their late 50s and 60s, like me, who will recall things from Tri-Ang, Hornby, Trix and others such as :
(All OO)
the same power bogies used between classes so cab steps didn't line up with doors,
5 axle Class 37 and 31,
different shades of BR Blue even from the same manufacturer,
couplings which left a scale 10' gap between loco and first vehicle and 6' gap between the rest,
no matter how detailed the body the chassis was bare of brakes, sandboxes and other things we take as standard today,
motors filling cabs or (for DMUs) brake vans,
to overcome this steam locos with 'tender drive' but the driving wheels didn't turn,
coaches without interior fittings,
a very limited range of rolling stock made worse because manufacturers never bothered to change loco numbers for years,
fake liveries and vehicles (anyone remember the polo tanker for example?)
and in N all that plus
massively over scale locos (from Lima in particular),
massively under scale coaches,
if you couldn't build kits forget improving anything,
All this was 'standard fare' for the British railway modeller in the 1960s and early 1970s. What today we take for granted in (fairly cheap) r-t-r was massively beyond even the most skilled scratch builder only 30 years ago.
By 'fairly cheap' consider this - I have a Railway Modeller magazine of May 1971 with Minitrix Warships being sold at 100/ - (£5 in today's money) when my wages for a 40 hour week were just 145/ - (£7. 05). To buy a loco then was a major investment Compare with today when a Warship costs around £100 BUT how many could you buy with one week's money? Even on a pension today I could pick up 3 so yes, today r-t-r is fairly cheap.
I for one am not complaining about what we have now.
As ever these are my personal thoughts on the subject.
Greg
I think the standard today is amazing and we are very lucky with the models we are able to buy.
For me though, the detailing is sometimes too intricate and I'd be happy to pay slightly less for a little less detailing.
It is horses for courses though and I'm happy.
Todays standard is excellent but if you want the extra finesse then I would suggest that they kit/scratch build and then they can include all the details they want. Make sure the colours are correct decals are correct
Then if its incorrect they only have theirselves to blame. Also they will see how much it costs to add that amount of detail to their model.
For me an N gauge model has to have the right 'feel/look' to it. I'm not really interested in the Nth degree (xcuse pun!) of detail because I probably wouldn't notice anyway.
So from a detail point of view I think current N gauge products are generally great.
What I won't put up with are items that don't work straight out of the box. Even yesterday someone posted about a brand new loco where he had to bend the valve gear on one side and glue a bit on the other side. That just shouldn't be necessary. Why not send it back if its not right? If it was a mobile phone or a DAB radio or a pair of shoes with a fault we'd just take the item back for repair or replacement. >:(
I could, and usually do, go on all day about this but I know you've heard it all before.
N gauge detailing is just fine though.
:D :beers:
I agree Austin Bob I think one of the most important parts of a model is the roof after all that's what you see most of when the model is running on your layout,It's nice to know that all the brake pipes dynamos etc are there but for instance on a diesel if the roof griles are just molded on instead of etched brass with not even a hint of the fan showing the the whole appearance of the model is spoilt , coaches without roof vents , steam Locos with the wrong size domes or shape of chimney yet the interior has firebox doors pipe work hand wheels and the buffer beam has molded lamps but not painted white .
Having said all that we are very lucky that N gauge has improved so much since it first came out and I for one do appreciate most of the manufacturers efforts.And look forward to even more ,
especially smooth running at all speeds.
Bob
The manufacturers respond to what the market demands; but personally, I think what the market is now demanding and what the manufacturers are now producing is faintly ridiculous.
The problem is that actually, there is not "a market"; there are two distinct markets for the same products, and it is impossible to respond to both. There are the "static display" collectors, whose demands are for ever more precise and accurate detail; and then there are the "wagons roll" modellers, who want to run realistic trains that will be viewed from a distance such that most of the detail currently being applied is too small to be appreciated in any event.
I remember when the Graham Farish Jubilee came out, the marketing director of Graham Farish at a major national exhibition (I can't remember which) putting one alongside a Peco Jubilee and inviting us to agree how much better the Graham Farish model was. I stepped back to the distance from which I had had to view the vast majority of the layouts in the exhibition and you know what? Not only were they indistinguishable at that distance, but half of the detail on the Peco locomotive would not be really discernible if it were running by at the head of a long rake of carriages.
Soooo ... the "static display" collector may be getting much more of what he wants for the enhanced price; but the "wagons roll" modeller isn't. The pendulum has swung out of equilibrium, and is now heavily in favour of the static display collector. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, I suspect your answer to that will largely depend upon whether or not you are a static display collector ...
Seems crazy to spend so much money on locos that will never run.
Quote from: Elvinley on July 10, 2015, 07:40:08 PM
Seems crazy to spend so much money on locos that will never run.
I'm not so sure that there are that many static collectors out there.... but maybe someone can prove me wrong.
I agree with Elvinley - why spend that much money on a loco that will never be used ?
I would have thought that most static collectors would go for the 00 market displaying something that is a reasonable size to be viewed.
Quote from: port perran on July 10, 2015, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: Elvinley on July 10, 2015, 07:40:08 PM
Seems crazy to spend so much money on locos that will never run.
I'm not so sure that there are that many static collectors out there.... but maybe someone can prove me wrong.
I agree with Elvinley - why spend that much money on a loco that will never be used ?
I would have thought that most static collectors would go for the 00 market displaying something that is a reasonable size to be viewed.
yeah or buy some Del Prado ;)
Quote from: PGN on July 09, 2015, 05:20:39 PM
The problem is that actually, there is not "a market"; there are two distinct markets for the same products, and it is impossible to respond to both. There are the "static display" collectors, whose demands are for ever more precise and accurate detail; and then there are the "wagons roll" modellers, who want to run realistic trains that will be viewed from a distance such that most of the detail currently being applied is too small to be appreciated in any event.
Sorry, but I'd strongly disagree with this - it seems a sweeping pigeon holing generalisation into two distinct categories with no overlap, which is just not valid IMHO.
There are plenty of "wagons roll" modellers who want precise and accurate detail as part of their running models also. I would classify myself as one of them, and could suggest several more on this forum too. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means and, as the standard of current models show, it's possible to have both high detail and a good reliable working model.
I want both, and believe we can (and do for the most part) have it, as it's clear the manufacturers know their market and acknowledge this actual demand via their leaps and bounds of improvements in standards over the last decade.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Elvinley on July 10, 2015, 07:51:23 PM
yeah or buy some Del Prado ;)
Sadly, it seems now the world will never ever be rid of that tat evermore.....
:no:
Cheers,
Alan
The regular debate rehashed!
Al makes, I feel, a valid point in that we expect improving quality and detail in those locos which we run and are not normally seen close up. It is right in that respect that Grafar in particular have a pack for very small details. I never add them in part because with my hand tremor I can't anyway, but my stock is handled regularly whether on my layout or the club layout out at shows so will be at greater risk of damage. That said there is a question of balance here. Even out of the box, current offerings, steam especially, are far more fragile than before. Especially the handrails. I remember a few years ago my first new Jubilee came at the same time as a UM 2P. The first looks exquisite, once I had repaired a damaged handrail!. The 2P looked fine at viewing distances and had a good solid feel and look to it - ideal for regular handling. Not sure how those 2 can be brought together. But I do find it interesting that a few have expressed a view that the new Duchess is not so great an improvement on the old. I have one of each, and my only issue is the front bogie spacing. The older one often runs on the club layout. The new one has only been out once so far and only run when I am present - even the out of box the detailing is on the fragile side and it cost me £127! Personally I do feel we may have gone a little too far in separate fine detail - but I am sure (many) others will disagree.
And I agree fully with the comment that good running, subject to running in, straight out of the box, is the first priority however detailed the loco is. My original 1980ish black 5s need adjustments so the valve gear did not bind and the pick ups touched the wheels, after which they ran impeccably for 30 years. Thankfully I have not had to return anything so far. The few issues I have experienced since Grafar moved to china and Dapol came in stream have been minor and I have sorted them myself. A friend of mine had his A1 valve gear fall apart - is it too fine these days to be strong enough? He managed to effect a repair with a watchmakers screw. But such things should not be happening. And I do find it impossible to judge what proportion of total sales are represented by those of our fellow modellers have shared their frustrations. Is there any reliable evidence out there?
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:08:45 AM
Quote from: Elvinley on July 10, 2015, 07:51:23 PM
yeah or buy some Del Prado ;)
Sadly, it seems now the world will never ever be rid of that tat evermore.....
:no:
You'd never guess what I found in a second-hand shop in Tokyo the other day...
Quote from: railsquid on July 11, 2015, 01:11:18 PM
You'd never guess what I found in a second-hand shop in Tokyo the other day...
Is this a competition? With prizes? I'll enter!
A half eaten licorice statue of Godfrey Winn, a green plastic model of the Eiffel Tower and a life size photograph of Mount Everest. Should I PM my address now so that you can send my mystery prize? (the prize is a Del Prado loco isn't it. I guessed...)
Quote from: Portpatrick on July 11, 2015, 11:42:30 AM
But I do find it interesting that a few have expressed a view that the new Duchess is not so great an improvement on the old. I have one of each, and my only issue is the front bogie spacing.
The new model is superb. I think the reason it's come with less acclaim than others is a reflection more on the old model than the new one. The old model was pretty good for its time as compared others from the same era. Correct look, not like other similar aged models (Farish A3 is great example with huge overscale boiler). The only biggy with the new tool model is Bachmann's cost cutting in using the front Bogie off a Scot/Jub which is of course completely wrong.
Quote from: Portpatrick on July 11, 2015, 11:42:30 AM
A friend of mine had his A1 valve gear fall apart - is it too fine these days to be strong enough?
Yes and no IMHO. The Farish models now use a few cast valve gear components, and these are more fragile than the all etched ones on old tool Farish, but also more accurate. Sometimes the screws/hex bolts can loosen off too, but that's more an issue of QC that they weren't quite tight enough in the first place. However, valve gear in general is up to handling IMHO.
I think one thing people overlook, and it's perhaps a provocative comment, but the way some folks handle these models is shocking, and it's no wonder they end up damaged. I've observed with uneasy interest at exhibitions how rough many are with models of all scales - dragging them along the track, dropping them down carelessly, etc. We've all done it, all had our slips and foul ups, and dropped something or the likes, but many seem permanently carefree. The models are possibly a bit more fragile nowadays being mostly plastic construction rather than the old cast solid lumps, and therefore do need a modicum of care - but I find it amazing how many seem not to bother, even with a purchase worth hundreds of £.
Quote from: Portpatrick on July 11, 2015, 11:42:30 AM
And I do find it impossible to judge what proportion of total sales are represented by those of our fellow modellers have shared their frustrations. Is there any reliable evidence out there?
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
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
I think one thing people overlook, and it's perhaps a provocative comment, but the way some folks handle these models is shocking, and it's no wonder they end up damaged. I've observed with uneasy interest at exhibitions how rough many are with models of all scales - dragging them along the track, dropping them down carelessly, etc. We've all done it, all had our slips and foul ups, and dropped something or the likes, but many seem permanently carefree. The models are possibly a bit more fragile nowadays being mostly plastic construction rather than the old cast solid lumps, and therefore do need a modicum of care - but I find it amazing how many seem not to bother, even with a purchase worth hundreds of £.
Visiting, as I tend to do, some 20-25 shows over the year I have to agree with Alan on that, especially the 'dragging along the track' bit :o
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
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.
I confess I have no figures to counter that 'significantly greater than 10%' but would be extremely concerned if it was that high :worried:
In my business life I always succeeded in keeping customer returns at/under 1% but accept the figure may be about 5% without the 'owner repaired' items being included. :hmmm:
Alan
Interesting feedback. Yes, the old duchess was good in its day, like IMHO the Std 264T, the Crab and the 4F (tender apart?). The usual issue of bogies and driving wheel size were its obvious shortcomings. Have bought city of Coventry as that is the only one I ever saw in the flesh. And retain an old style Green one which was modified to a non ex streamlined format by its first owner - I bought it in 1985!
It was the plastic bit on the A1 which disappeared - don't know what it is called!. You make a valid point that too many people are too ham fisted, I have seen this myself, though it must be an open question what is "reasonable" ability to cope with handling. And what is normal handling. My stock appears at exhibitions but I realise that is not the case for everyone, so greater finnesse, and fragility, is fine for others.
Your statistic on the returns rate, plus allowance for those of us who deal with minor faults, seems horrifying to me. The manufacturers really must get their QC better managed .
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
I think one thing people overlook, and it's perhaps a provocative comment, but the way some folks handle these models is shocking, and it's no wonder they end up damaged. I've observed with uneasy interest at exhibitions how rough many are with models of all scales - dragging them along the track, dropping them down carelessly, etc. We've all done it, all had our slips and foul ups, and dropped something or the likes, but many seem permanently carefree.
I have to agree with this sentiment, I too have seen some sausage-fingered operators plonk a loco down hard from three inches above the track, and if all the wheels didn't land correctly on the track they'd lift it up and do the same again until it did! :goggleeyes:
Have these people never heard of a Peco Re-railer Ramp?
Paul
Quote from: Sprintex on July 11, 2015, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
I think one thing people overlook, and it's perhaps a provocative comment, but the way some folks handle these models is shocking, and it's no wonder they end up damaged. I've observed with uneasy interest at exhibitions how rough many are with models of all scales - dragging them along the track, dropping them down carelessly, etc. We've all done it, all had our slips and foul ups, and dropped something or the likes, but many seem permanently carefree.
I have to agree with this sentiment, I too have seen some sausage-fingered operators plonk a loco down hard from three inches above the track, and if all the wheels didn't land correctly on the track they'd lift it up and do the same again until it did! :goggleeyes:
Have these people never heard of a Peco Re-railer Ramp?
Paul
Or perhaps they simply have more money than sense, whilst I have to save for several months to buy a DCC fitted loco, there must be those amongst us who can afford to buy them out of a months wage packet the way I have seen some treated at shows, storage boxes just dropped on the floor, even kicked around under layouts.
Perhaps this is where all those "slightly damaged" ones come from that seem to populate E-bay ?
Quote from: PGN on July 09, 2015, 05:20:39 PM
The manufacturers respond to what the market demands; but personally, I think what the market is now demanding and what the manufacturers are now producing is faintly ridiculous.
The problem is that actually, there is not "a market"; there are two distinct markets for the same products, and it is impossible to respond to both. There are the "static display" collectors, whose demands are for ever more precise and accurate detail; and then there are the "wagons roll" modellers, who want to run realistic trains that will be viewed from a distance such that most of the detail currently being applied is too small to be appreciated in any event.
I remember when the Graham Farish Jubilee came out, the marketing director of Graham Farish at a major national exhibition (I can't remember which) putting one alongside a Peco Jubilee and inviting us to agree how much better the Graham Farish model was. I stepped back to the distance from which I had had to view the vast majority of the layouts in the exhibition and you know what? Not only were they indistinguishable at that distance, but half of the detail on the Peco locomotive would not be really discernible if it were running by at the head of a long rake of carriages.
Soooo ... the "static display" collector may be getting much more of what he wants for the enhanced price; but the "wagons roll" modeller isn't. The pendulum has swung out of equilibrium, and is now heavily in favour of the static display collector. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, I suspect your answer to that will largely depend upon whether or not you are a static display collector ...
I find this a very interesting point you raise PGN. I don't know the actual figures of those who run their locos vs those who dispkay them only, but it would be interesting to get a rough idea.
I'd suspect the static displayers tend towards more detail / accuracy, whereas those who run their models ... well, they populate the entire spectrum. There are those who aren't so bothered about detail (such as me) and there are those who are really interested in it.
I suspect the manufacturers have taken the decision that more detail is the way to go in terms of keeping up sales, which is fair enough. At the end of the day the manufacturers are companies, just like a company that manufactures cars, aeroplanes, sells you a bus ticket, repairs your boiler, and so on and so on. I wouldn't feel sorry for them ;) No controversy intended there, just my sentiments.
I like my Poole built models and nothing coming out of China, no matter how well detailed, will replace those. I know that's not the feeling, or demand, from the majority, however.
I suspect it's impossible for the manufacturers to please all people all if the time. I guess this discussion is had by those collecting diecast model aeroplanes me other models too.
Cheers
Dan
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
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
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?
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on July 12, 2015, 08:20:11 AM
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
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
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?
Absolutely right!!
:thumbsup:
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on July 12, 2015, 08:20:11 AM
Quote from: Dr Al on July 11, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
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?
Quote from: johnlambert on July 12, 2015, 08:31:57 AM
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?
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.
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
Quote from: Agrippa on July 12, 2015, 08:55:36 AM
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 :)
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx178/glencoyne/080614002_zps39681ca1.jpg)
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.
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
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
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.
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!!!
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.
Quote from: belstone on July 12, 2015, 05:24:29 PM
There is nothing more ridiculous IMHO than grown men arguing over toy trains.
Amen to that :thumbsup:
Paul
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 :D
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
Quote from: DesertHound on July 12, 2015, 05:48:11 PM
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 :D
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 (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.
Quote from: Sprintex on July 12, 2015, 05:26:29 PM
Quote from: belstone on July 12, 2015, 05:24:29 PM
There is nothing more ridiculous IMHO than grown men arguing over toy trains.
Amen to that :thumbsup:
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? :hmmm: :beers:
Quote from: belstone on July 12, 2015, 06:08:40 PM
Also Code 55 was available in the late 1980s, but not the single slip.
The flexible track was available (branded as Super N, SL300X) long long before any turnouts were available in the mid 1980s, and I don't think the pointwork started coming out until the 1990s, which is probably why its initial uptake was slow.
Cheers,
Alan
Is arguing about arguing expecting too much of us? :confused1:
Quote from: newportnobby on July 12, 2015, 06:17:24 PM
Is arguing about arguing expecting too much of us? :confused1:
Arguing about arguing Mmmm. I feel a new thread coming on! Oh perhaps not today.
:)
Quote from: railsquid on July 09, 2015, 12:23:58 AM
...otherwise we'd still be enjoying pancake motors and pizza-cutter wheels...
As someone who's been out of the hobby since the days of basic detailed, sloppy hand-painted locos running on pizza cutters, I was genuinely amazed at how much progress has been made.
Slipping back into the hobby with locos bearing the tiny details like buffer beams, realistic wheels in detailed bogies and handrails, I'm not complaining about anything.
I actually like the pizza cutter wheels on old Farish stock - each to their own I guess :D
Belstone
I looked at the thread you posted here on a previous layout of yours - thank you for sharing it with us. I'll admit that I didn't read every post, but did take a good look at all the pictures (would like to go back over it and read the text when I have time).
Anyway, this is just to say that I can see what you are trying to achieve. Dovetailing that with this topic, I can understand very much how detail doesn't necessarily have to be king and it's all a matter of perspective and, as you said earlier, relative modelling (in that everything is to the same standard, or thereabouts).
I like your use of the word "impressionist" in look. If we thought of a painting, well, they are all of different standards. Some of the most famous look like they've been painted by a five year old, yet fetch millions because someone finds a meaning in them. That same painting wouldn't look right if you blended it with a Monet (or Monet himself used different techniques on the same painting), and so it is that consistency from a modelling perspective all goes in to creating a picture / setting / image, which can be very convincing.
Apologies if this seems likes it's pulling the topic away from the original question. It's merely to build on Belstone's observation that simple can also be beautiful and this is where older (Farish) stock can fit in. For this reason I have included it in this thread.
Again, not wishing to pull the thread too far off topic.
Dan
Quote from: Basinga on July 13, 2015, 12:03:10 PM
Quote from: railsquid on July 09, 2015, 12:23:58 AM
...otherwise we'd still be enjoying pancake motors and pizza-cutter wheels...
As someone who's been out of the hobby since the days of basic detailed, sloppy hand-painted locos running on pizza cutters, I was genuinely amazed at how much progress has been made.
Slipping back into the hobby with locos bearing the tiny details like buffer beams, realistic wheels in detailed bogies and handrails, I'm not complaining about anything.
Yup, until last year I hadn't handled any models newer than my late 70's/early 80's Hornby/Lima OO stuff. I chanced upon some Japanese N-gauges stuff and was blown away by the quality and detail. And ended up getting some more... and more...