Too much detail?

[belstone]

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.

[Sprintex]

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

[Bealman]

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.

[Newportnobby]

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 . 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

[red_death]

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

[johnlambert]

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

[EtchedPixels]

Of course the J39 is one of the few locos where you have that choice. The Union Mills one or the Farish....

[Roy L S]

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

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.

[EtchedPixels]

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

[Roy L S]

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

[belstone]

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.

[MikeDunn]

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

[johnlambert]

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.

[Kipper]

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.

[dodger]

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