Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

New Models - How Realistic are We Going to Get?


Recommended Posts

I was just reading how many features are in the Realtrack 156.

What struck me wasn't the many detailled parts but more the tech, like lighting options, the destination board light along with other things.

 

This led me to think about Dapol's Class 68 with the Halo lights.

 

Like cars having electric windows as standard these days, I wonder how far can we get without some units being stupid money?

 

Things like passenger doors that actually open, or tiny screens that would fit on a new Turbostar model that we can program ourselves.

 

Obviously you aren't going to get this with older locos but newer units, perhaps.

Are manufacturers missing a trick with not including a lot more of these things to set their model far away from competitors?

Or are we as model consumers (?) happy with the physical details, pipes and cables we can see?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently working or getting some Hornby dublo 1960s locos back to working condition, and am still astonished in the improvements in locos and rolling stock from the early 1970s when I started muddling to the present day.  Solid wheels, moulded handrails, motors, and the one size fits all chassis.  Cost (and value) will no doubt feature, but the advances to date are still amazing.  The future beckons....

 

JG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, polybear said:

But how many of the latest offerings will still be running (or fixable) in 59 years....

 

Who cares if they are? I certainly won't be here in 59 years time. :lol:

 

I don't want gimmicks though. I can't see the point of nonsense such as opening doors, it's not like you've got little people that walk onto the train. Things like that are getting too close to giraffe cars for my taste. Fine for the lower end of the market such as Railroad, not suitable for scale models.

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There might be a split in the market . Clearly to get all these features it costs money, although perhaps not as much as we all think. One manufacturer is adding bells and whistles and seems to think this enables them to charge much more . Some people want increasing levels of detail no matter what cost . I can see us quickly getting to the stage where units cost £300 as more and more details are included .  The new Bachmann 158s scheduled for next year are coming in at £259 for 2 car and £329 for 3 car, so we are getting there .  Realtrack which I think is currently the most detailed unit on market is £220 I believe .    So there are those who must have as much detail as possible who will pay enhanced prices.   However, there is also a part of the market that's not willing to pay, and is quite happy with reasonable levels of detail at miniomal cost . I would site the latest Hornby 66s as evidence of that . They seem to be very popular and people are prepared to accept the compromise .   So a split is in order. Only issue is I don't know which % is high and which %is low .

 

The issue is confused by the likes of Accurascale and direct sellers who seem to be producing high spec models at  reasonable cost eg forthcoming mk5s @£225 for 5 coaches .

Edited by Legend
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Saw the new Hornby J36 t’other day, which apparently has working inside motion and comes in at 

around £150. This seems to me not in the least gimmicky, but a genuine and highly desirable advance in RTR standards.  It is, I suspect, the Next Big Thing in steam outline models; even outside cylinder locos have plenty going on between the frames which is viewable and apparent from most modelling viewpoints, typically looking down at an angle at the action. 

 

My my view is that there is a standard of realism that mass produced volume RTR can be expected to deliver, and that we are not far short of it, but not quite there yet! Lights and sound, DCC territory, can be an enhancement if they are done well, but often aren’t, at which point they descend rapidly into gimmickry.  Non steam outline seems better served in this regard; steam locos did not make a standard white noise panting dog sound in all (or any) circumstances!

 

Room for improvement would include, IMHO, less moulded bogie and spring detail on non-steam outline models, lights that are in general not anything like as ridiculously bright, a system of removable and poseable working headcode lights and tail lights for steam locos and brake vans, between frame details as already mentioned, headcode panels for 60s and 70s locos that can be correctly set and backlit.  A working diesel exhaust fumes generator based on Suethe technology should be easily achievable, as should a basic working brake on brake vans to hold stock on gradients

 

This is brings us to the Big Ask; realistic and believable steam and smoke effects for steam locos.  Has to respond to how hard the operator wants the loco to appear to be working, which is not the same thing as feeding back from the actual load on the motor, and be safe to use in an enclosed domestic environment, and not make a mess!  

 

Any takers; I’m not holding my breath, but this is the one aspect of steam operation that we have to rely most on our imaginations to supply!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 A working diesel exhaust fumes generator based on Suethe technology should be easily achievable, as should a basic working brake on brake vans to hold stock on gradients

 

This is brings us to the Big Ask; realistic and believable steam and smoke effects for steam locos.  Has to respond to how hard the operator wants the loco to appear to be working, which is not the same thing as feeding back from the actual load on the motor, and be safe to use in an enclosed domestic environment, and not make a mess!  

 

Any takers; I’m not holding my breath, but this is the one aspect of steam operation that we have to rely most on our imaginations to supply!

2

I think you'll be waiting a long while for this!

Friends and myself have several Euro outline H0 diesel models that have all the bells and whistles and while the sound is excellent, the smoke effect is quite poor - such that we rarely if ever use it now.

My mate also splashed out on the latest high end Roco steam outline loco (H0 again) - again, nice sound, poor smoke.

A great shame that such a model that originally cost around £500, still can't provide decent smoke and I really fail to see the typical '00' modeller paying those kinds of figures.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Saw the new Hornby J36 t’other day, which apparently has working inside motion and comes in at 

around £150. This seems to me not in the least gimmicky, but a genuine and highly desirable advance in RTR standards.  It is, I suspect, the Next Big Thing in steam outline models; even outside cylinder locos have plenty going on between the frames which is viewable and apparent from most modelling viewpoints, typically looking down at an angle at the action. 

 

 

I think someone was pulling your leg. Wasn't April 1st was it? :jester:

 

It has a representation of inside valve gear but not working. The £150 version is the sound version. Normal ones are about £125.

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Room for improvement would include, IMHO, less moulded bogie and spring detail on non-steam outline models...

 

I strongly agree on this as an obvious area for improvement.  Good examples already steering in that direction have been Hornby's Class 60 - despite being over a decade since its original release the bogies are far superior in terms of detail to many models being released today.  Another outstanding model in this respect is the DJ Models Class 71, which includes some pretty exquisite detailing to the bogie frames.  At the other end of the spectrum, the shortly to be released Class 90 from Bachmann still features a one-piece bogie moulding that covers everything - quite retrograde if anything - which just goes to show that the various manufacturers are often at quite different levels. 

 

Another obvious area for improvement generally would be improved glazing, the industry standard 'fishbowl effect' just doesn't cut it any more...

 

 

Edited by YesTor
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I think someone was pulling your leg. Wasn't April 1st was it? :jester:

 

It has a representation of inside valve gear but not working. The £150 version is the sound version. Normal ones are about £125.

 

 

Jason

No. it was last week not April Fool's, and in light of your information I am glad I qualified what was an assumption on my part when I saw the thing with the use of the word 'apparently'; I've caught myself out this way before!

 

Non working inside motion, which will be visible from the angles I mentioned but not moving when the loco moves, is IMHO a very gad idea; there's no point whatsoever in having it if you can't see it moving correctly, especially when it's been highlighted in red paint.  It's about the equivalent of having static outside motion.  This is a retrograde step and very unwelcome; I'm glad the new Bachmann 94xx will not be disfigured in this way!

 

Working posable reversing rods and valve settings could be done with DCC locos, though, and possibly with DC using some sort of feedback sensors, and would add a layer of realism

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...Non working inside motion, which will be visible from the angles I mentioned but not moving when the loco moves, is IMHO a very bad idea; there's no point whatsoever in having it if you can't see it moving correctly, especially when it's been highlighted in red paint.  It's about the equivalent of having static outside motion.  This is a retrograde step and very unwelcome; I'm glad the new Bachmann 94xx will not be disfigured in this way!

 

Working posable reversing rods and valve settings could be done with DCC locos, though, and possibly with DC using some sort of feedback sensors, and would add a layer of realism

The movement of the valve rod is very small in 4mm. Too small to be worthwhile representing in my opinion and here's why.

 

A selection of Bachmann's steam locos with outside Walschaerts do have a moving valve rod driven off the combination lever and - on at least one model - the combination lever is correctly driven by both the crosshead lever and the expansion link via the radius rod. It's garnered very little comment on line, I rather feel most folks fail to notice!

 

There are problems too, the summed slack of the motion joints involved is much the same dimension as the movement of the valve rod so there is significant lost and thereby 'wayward' motion. If you really look closely as the loco starts, sometimes the valve rod initially goes 'wrong way' of which more anon! Once the loco is running at any speed you would do very well to see the small valve rod movement at all.

 

What is always observable of the valve gear movements are the cross head and lever, combination lever, return crank and lever to the expansion link. What gouges the eye is that the return crank is often set at the wrong angle; and that in turn where such a generated valve motion is created the valve rod movement is often out of phase with the piston movement. Have you ever previously read anyone stating that the valve rod movement of the Bachmann K3 can be badly out of phase with the piston? Didn't think so! Too small to notice...

 

(The K3 is so constructed that replacement of the fixed position bridle rod by one that can move would enable the radius rod to be moved through complete travel in the expansion link from full forward to full reverse, and a memory metal actuator might well be DCC controllable to conform to the loco's direction. However, given the waywardness of the generated valve rod movement, I don't feel this would be worthwhile.)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 14:02, woodenhead said:

Luckily flashing lights, opening doors and spinning fans are something for diesels and electrics.

 

Steam locos are much simpler - all we want is a real coal file, boiler plus a miniature driver and fireman.

I'd like all model steam tender locos to have an adjustable loco to tender link through the dragboxes which Bachmann alone currently offer as standard. (Hornby know how its done, demonstrated on the Britannia/Clan, but not since.) It really makes a significant improvement in appearance when loco and tender can be positioned at scale separation.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I think someone was pulling your leg. Wasn't April 1st was it? :jester:

 

It has a representation of inside valve gear but not working. The £150 version is the sound version. Normal ones are about £125.

 

 

Jason

 

7 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The movement of the valve rod is very small in 4mm. Too small to be worthwhile representing in my opinion and here's why.

 

A selection of Bachmann's steam locos with outside Walschaerts do have a moving valve rod driven off the combination lever and - on at least one model - the combination lever is correctly driven by both the crosshead lever and the expansion link via the radius rod. It's garnered very little comment on line, I rather feel most folks fail to notice!

 

There are problems too, the summed slack of the motion joints involved is much the same dimension as the movement of the valve rod so there is significant lost and thereby 'wayward' motion. If you really look closely as the loco starts, sometimes the valve rod initially goes 'wrong way' of which more anon! Once the loco is running at any speed you would do very well to see the small valve rod movement at all.

 

What is always observable of the valve gear movements are the cross head and lever, combination lever, return crank and lever to the expansion link. What gouges the eye is that the return crank is often set at the wrong angle; and that in turn where such a generated valve motion is created the valve rod movement is often out of phase with the piston movement. Have you ever previously read anyone stating that the valve rod movement of the Bachmann K3 can be badly out of phase with the piston? Didn't think so! Too small to notice...

 

(The K3 is so constructed that replacement of the fixed position bridle rod by one that can move would enable the radius rod to be moved through complete travel in the expansion link from full forward to full reverse, and a memory metal actuator might well be DCC controllable to conform to the loco's direction. However, given the waywardness of the generated valve rod movement, I don't feel this would be worthwhile.)

Nothing I'd disagree with there, 34!  But I do feel that improvement can be eventually made in these areas, perhaps with different materials not currently available, like the ballasting of locos with unobtainium...  The detail between the frames on the J36 rather draws attention to itself and the fact that noting is actually happening, though.  

 

My 'thought process was informed' by the idea that a real steam locomotive driver or engineer could tell the state of a loco's the valve gear and extent of the cutoff by just looking at it as it passed by, and should ideally be able to do the same with a model even in 4mm.  He should certainly IMHO be able to do it on a 7mm model that cost several hundred pounds!  As the discussion is about how far RTR can be taken, I felt a flight of fancy about what might be achievable in future even if it is beyond reasonable expectation for now was justifiable.  

 

Any level of detail is possible, but not necessarily marketable!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

You can have the most amazing body shell with all the most accurate bells, whistles and spinny bits, but until the track gauge is sorted out the models are going to be heavily compromised. 

 

There we are it's been said - Time for me to go a hide with a tin thick steel helmet on :rolleyes:

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 This is brings us to the Big Ask; realistic and believable steam and smoke effects for steam locos.

 

Physics is not your friend in this case for either steam or diesel exhaust.  Augmented reality will probably be the solution.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kris said:

You can have the most amazing body shell with all the most accurate bells, whistles and spinny bits, but until the track gauge is sorted out the models are going to be heavily compromised. 

 

There we are it's been said - Time for me to go a hide with a tin thick steel helmet on :rolleyes:

 

Not to mention the desire of some to run big locos on an oval of 2nd radius track.

 

Do I have to find my own hiding place or can I join you?

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Physics is not your friend in this case for either steam or diesel exhaust.  Augmented reality will probably be the solution.

You may well be right, and I’ll be a’mouldering in me grave long before it happens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

You may well be right, and I’ll be a’mouldering in me grave long before it happens!

 

Might be closer than you think, however it would mean that you would need to be watching the layout via the screen of your tablet / phone (even if this is in a head set), which seems wrong to me. The AR program would also need to account for a moving physical object (the train) which could be taxing on processing power. AR is great fun and has a lot of applications, many of which we do know of yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Kris said:

You can have the most amazing body shell with all the most accurate bells, whistles and spinny bits, but until the track gauge is sorted out the models are going to be heavily compromised...

We might note that OO's cousin HO also has related compromise on many models, sometimes worse in my opinion than the OO option in that it is variable scale within the model. This is nothing to do with gauge, but the requirement that the model operate on grossly underscale curve radii, combined with the use of key mechanism parts such as wheels made to a commercial standard rather than true scale.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still thinking about some aspects of this, following a gathering yesterday evening, with some operating, jawing and model admiring type activity. This group of 'we' are agin 'back-sliding'. It's obvious that there is now proven technique to make a competent RTR OO working model of anything except truly insane subjects, of accurate exterior appearance and well finished with all the detail readily visible to the naked eye firmly attached. We'll have more of that please.

 

If a manufacturer considers there's a market for a reduced cost model, to be achieved by some significant compromise in accuracy, detail finish, operating performance, durability: then please have the decency to make that clear when announcing such an addition to the range.

 

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 11:47, Sir TophamHatt said:

...Or are we as model consumers (?) happy with the physical details, pipes and cables we can see?

We certainly don't want detail we cannot see. Cab interiors on deep or fully enclosed cabs with small windows and no internal light for example: only fit detail adjacent to windows or where they can clearly be seen from the open end. One of mine had the regulator lying on the cab floor, I hadn't noticed, just cannot be seen on a working model on the layout.

 

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 23:01, YesTor said:

...Another obvious area for improvement generally would be improved glazing, the industry standard 'fishbowl effect' just doesn't cut it any more...

Some fairly recent models are way better on this front. I'd cite the Heljan NBL type 1 (class 16) and Hornby's L1 2-6-4T. You can look through the cab side to side through two glazing pieces, and there's not too much distortion of the view. Admitted these are nice simple plane glazing in rectangular openings, but progress is progress.

 

One of the ironies of the steady transfer over the past twenty years of better technique long proven in RTR HO to RTR OO, is that the 'popular/numerous subjects' which got new models early in this process, are now often markedly inferior to more recent introductions. Yet many of the subjects of the more recent introductions include types few in number, less well known, totally obscure, or even outright failures in service. But by the benefit of later introduction such exotica are often superior in execution to the regular common or garden items that all layouts need in quantity.

 

So there's definitely continuing opportunity for those entering this market to offer 'better' as we have and are seeing.  For as long as our purchasing activity supports it, expect regular complaints about 'why more duplication?'.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

A large part of this hobby has become about "acquisition". I recently had a interesting conversation with a member of the management team of one of the RTR suppliers who said that, although they had no hard evidence to prove it, they think about 70 - 80% of the "unusual" new models go straight into the display cabinet or back into the box after a short run on the layout.

 

In the same way that manufacturers of consumer goods add extra options or facilities to their products to make them more desirable, then that is probably how the manufacturers will go with new models to get an edge over their rivals. Some of theses extras make the models more realistic (coach lamps, etc.) yet in relation to effectively improving the realism of the layout on which they run (or the display cabinet in which they are kept), they have little impact. This is often illustrated by the addition of gimmicks to layouts such as disco lighting, flickering fires, etc. which, unless used carefully and sympathetically, look unrealistic.

  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

A large part of this hobby has become about "acquisition". I recently had a interesting conversation with a member of the management team of one of the RTR suppliers who said that, although they had no hard evidence to prove it, they think about 70 - 80% of the "unusual" new models go straight into the display cabinet or back into the box after a short run on the layout.

I am pretty sure that this is a general truth, thus my alteration to the quote above. I have a fair amount of s/h RTR OO, all of it from current Chinese  production: it's 50% of my RTR loco stock now, and the large majority show not the slightest sign of ever having been previously run as I receive them. (None of these s/h acquisitions are 'exotica', all regular BR liveried service units and mostly from large classes.)

 

This accords with the RTR manufacturers initial statements when a model is reported on line as having a significant mechanical or other defect causing rapid failure when operated; that they have not seen any evidence of such a problem. Well no they will not, because most of the purchasers haven't operated the thing, at least not beyond a brief check on receipt that 'the wheels turn' which is insufficient to reveal a lurking problem!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...