Too much detail?

[Agrippa]

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.

[johnlambert]

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.

[Bealman]

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

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.

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

[Roy L S]

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

[Roy L S]

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

[Bealman]

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.

[fisherman]

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

[Bealman]

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.

[Dr Al]

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

[BobB]

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.

[mr bachmann]

talking of detail on Union Mills models , it would be nice to see GT3 modelled , the lack of detail would be minimal .

[Dorsetmike]

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.

[Luke Piewalker]

I'm quite happy with Code 80... shiny rails, the appropriate distance apart.. with sleepers... :shrug

[Bealman]

 

As someone who is stuck with code 80, I like that!! 

[Bealman]

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).