If you want "Real Modellers" you need the accessories

[Nearholmer]

Mostly very tacky handbags and ear-rings from what I gather, but they might, just might, stock G&SWR 1912 commode handles, and so forth.

 

K

[BG John]

I have to admit that I'm not in favour in taking a backward step and demanding less details on models.

 

Surely any handling should be minimal. There is no need to keep grabbing and fingering the models. If they are carefully put on the track (or display case for some people) there shouldn't be many other reasons to keep handling them. And these days the most fragile bits tend to come in a poly bag for the purchaser to fit and can be left off if so desired or one is prone to clumsy handling.

 

If you are going to bash and alter the model, then firstly carefully remove the delicate/fragile bits.

 

G.

Handling isn't minimal on a terminus - fiddle yard layout, where you have to pick up the loco to put it on the other end of the train each time it returns to the fiddle yard. Unless you devise complicated methods to avoid it.

 

The point about all the extras is that they make a more expensive model, that makes it less affordable to buy them to bash into something else, especially if you then have to buy different bits to produce what you want. Fortunately, the locos I currently want to bash are old models from the days of simplicity, that I either own already, or are cheap on eBay.

[asmay2002]

Handling isn't minimal on a terminus - fiddle yard layout, where you have to pick up the loco to put it on the other end of the train each time it returns to the fiddle yard.

Handling shouldn't be necessary at all if the fiddle yard is done properly.

[BG John]

Handling shouldn't be necessary at all if the fiddle yard is done properly.

Define "properly"!

[grahame]

Handling isn't minimal on a terminus - fiddle yard layout, where you have to pick up the loco to put it on the other end of the train each time it returns to the fiddle yard. Unless you devise complicated methods to avoid it.

 

I wouldn't have thought that a simple run round loop was a complicated method to get an engine from one end of the train to the other, but I guess there will be those without such refinements in their fiddle yards.

 

However, I appreciate that there are people who seem to have a higher propensity to damage their models when handling them but in general I don't have such problems. Therefore, having less detailed models doesn't suit me but presumably there will be some who damage their models when picking them up and would prefer less delicate and fragile details. Just not for me, thanks.

 

G.

[jjb1970]

One of the mistakes Hornby made with design clever was to announce it to the world. The major mistake was poor execution. The idea of engineering a model to reduce cost of manufacture and minimise the costs of those aspects which will not be obvious to the consumer or which will be an acceptable compromise to most customers is not only sensible, the real question to me is why would a company not do that. Some of the things that people criticised Hornby for are accepted without much comment when their competitors do them. How many people criticise Bachmann for using 3 pole motors, few seem unduly bothered that the forthcoming Bachmann/Kernow 4TC has moulded hand rails on the nose. And nor should they as a 3 pole motor can work perfectly well and provide silky smooth and quiet operation and especially modern moulding capabilities can produce very realistic and perfectly acceptable moulded details if used well. Some of the Hornby design clever models were badly done and the compromises were either too obvious (moulded on darts, cabside handrails) or would detract from performance (replacing bearings with square slots in the Mazak chasis). Unfortunately poor execution poisoned the concept of design clever, yet I suspect (I hope) that the basic principle of considering manufacturing cost at the design stage to minimise costs and man hours underpins their product development process. Sometimes I’ve looked at models and thought that they were unduly complicated and that smarter design could have produced a simpler model with no loss of fidelity to prototype, which indicates less than great design.

On the question about whether there is a space for simpler but still good looking models then I think the answer is yes. The new generation Hornby Railroad tooling has I think been very effective in providing good looking, sweet running models that whilst losing some of the bells, whistles and refinements of main range models are nevertheless nice looking, accurate models. If modellers have a choice of whether to buy a more basic, lower spec model or paying more for a full fat super detailed offering then that is a good thing and should be welcomed I think. Then it is the modeller who makes their decision and is either spared paying a lot of money for finery they could easily live without or they buy a model which is detailed to the highest possible standards (or something in between).

[BG John]

I wouldn't have thought that a simple run round loop was a complicated method to get an engine from one end of the train to the other, but I guess there will be those without such refinements in their fiddle yards.

 

However, I appreciate that there are people who seem to have a higher propensity to damage their models when handling them but in general I don't have such problems. Therefore, having less detailed models doesn't suit me but presumably there will be some who damage their models when picking them up and would prefer less delicate and fragile details. Just not for me, thanks.

 

G.

It's not complicated, but pretty much doubles the length. I'm building several layouts that are between 5ft and 6ft 6in long, including the fiddle yard. Not only would the fiddle yard be longer than the scenic part, I'd also have the complication of needing it on two baseboards rather than one. And for the O gauge layout I'm planning, I've tried various options, but it takes the length from something manageable to not fitting in my current railway room without major disruption, and may not fit in another house if I end up moving.

[Colin_McLeod]

A run round loop adds approximately the length of two crossovers. Unless your fiddle yard sidings are very short indeed, then it is hardly doubling the length.

[asmay2002]

Define "properly"!

 

Well lets see.

You can have a loop as grahame has already suggested.

You can have a turntable arrangement that turns the whole train end for end.

You can use "cassettes" with short plug on casettes for the loco which gets moved from one end to the either (the orginal cassette concept) or long cassettes where you turn the whole train end for end.

You can have a traverser arrangement with a loco length run off at each end so you can use one of the tracks of the traverser as a loop.

 

All of these will work.  There are probably others I haven't thought of.

[grahame]

It's not complicated, but pretty much doubles the length.

Perhaps if you are prone to damaging your stock then you need to factor in to your layout design having a suitable fiddle yard that minimises handling. I understand that cassettes enable one to turn a complete train, or even just the loco, without touching them. Or you could consider running stock that can be reversed without manhandling the stock such as DMUs or push-pull trains.

 

There are certainly some clever options available which would enable you to continue with using finely detailed stock. It's just a matter of working out something suitable and incorporating it in to your layouts. Probably better to be a little proactive and look to overcome any issues rather than dismissing everything with excuses and considering/championing, what I guess many will consider a negative solution, of having more basic and less detailed models.

 

G.

[Edwardian]

Well lets see.

You can have a loop as grahame has already suggested.

You can have a turntable arrangement that turns the whole train end for end.

You can use "cassettes" with short plug on casettes for the loco which gets moved from one end to the either (the orginal cassette concept) or long cassettes where you turn the whole train end for end.

You can have a traverser arrangement with a loco length run off at each end so you can use one of the tracks of the traverser as a loop.

 

All of these will work.  There are probably others I haven't thought of.

 

Off topic, I know, but I have thought about a single cassette for both loco and train whereby I turn the cassette, uncouple the loco and run it back on the layout, turn the cassette again and then the turned loco backs into the cassette and pulls forward (locomotives turn, trains don't!).  That might just be less faff than separate loco and train cassettes? 

[BG John]

A run round loop adds approximately the length of two crossovers. Unless your fiddle yard sidings are very short indeed, then it is hardly doubling the length.

 

Perhaps if you are prone to damaging your stock then you need to factor in to your layout design having a suitable fiddle yard that minimises handling. I understand that cassettes enable one to turn a complete train, or even just the loco, without touching them. Or you could consider running stock that can be reversed without manhandling the stock such as DMUs or push-pull trains.

 

There are certainly some clever options available which would enable you to continue with using finely detailed stock. It's just a matter of working out something suitable and incorporating it in to your layouts. Probably better to be a little proactive and look to overcome any issues rather than dismissing everything with excuses and considering/championing, what I guess many will consider a negative solution, of having more basic and less detailed models.

 

G.

 

 

My EM layout has a 30" three track sector plate. A point the length of a Peco short radius would be 7" long, plus 7" for the loco beyond it. Double that for both ends of the loop, and you have 28", making a 6ft 6in layout 8ft long. A big difference. A traverser at each end would halve the increase in length, but add a lot of complication.

 

My broad gauge layout has a 24" three track sector plate, and the layout is 5ft long. Add 28" on to that and it increases the length of the entire layout by 50%!

 

Cassettes are an option, that I'll be using on my O gauge layout, but they're not a practical solution for the two I've mentioned above, as they need to be sector plates because I'm only modelling half the station, and the fiddle yard replaces most of the pointwork.

 

I've been through many options to avoid handling, and they all add length, and/or complexity. Rebuilding Peco Loco Lifts is about the only practical option I've come up with. A simple and very positive solution is to have less or stronger detail on the locos, so they can withstand the handling.

[BG John]

Off topic, I know, but I have thought about a single cassette for both loco and train whereby I turn the cassette, uncouple the loco and run it back on the layout, turn the cassette again and then the turned loco backs into the cassette and pulls forward (locomotives turn, trains don't!).  That might just be less faff than separate loco and train cassettes? 

I'm concerned about the risk of turning a cassette on a baseboard narrower than the length of the cassette, and it would have to be kept totally clear to do it. Otherwise it needs to be lifted. A whole train ending up on the floor is worse than damaging some fine detail on the loco! I'd rather have a separate loco cassette, and space to slide it along the baseboard to the other end of the train. It's what I'm aiming for on my O gauge layout. I really don't want to start picking up 4ft long cassettes with an unbalanced weight on them.

 

I think unnecessary complexity is being created, just to avoid the simple solution of making things that need handling tough enough to be handled.

[Dunsignalling]

Off topic, I know, but I have thought about a single cassette for both loco and train whereby I turn the cassette, uncouple the loco and run it back on the layout, turn the cassette again and then the turned loco backs into the cassette and pulls forward (locomotives turn, trains don't!).  That might just be less faff than separate loco and train cassettes? 

Much depends on the length of the cassette and the size of your fiddle yard worktop.

 

If you need to lift the train cassette rather than just sliding it around, a separate, short one just for the loco is much the safer option. 

 

On the odd occasions when I have operated layouts with cassette fiddle yards, its not really a faff. Train runs in, stock on long cassette, loco on short one; uncouple loco. 

 

Split the cassettes, turn the short one, pull the long one off the feeder track, fit short cassette to feeder track, fit long cassette to short one. Job done

 

 

John

[Andy Hayter]

I have used (or at least considered) all of Asmay's suggestiond with various levels of success.

 

The loop as has been suggested is wateful of length.  I have these on my roundy roundy layout since they are about the most simple and logical Fiddle Yard solution in such an environment.  Even here they eat space (length) and the length of the resulting sidings creates the limit to the length of train that can be run.

 

The turntable concept was used on each end of my first pre-nationalisation French layout.  To be fair this worked well at exhibitions and was a talking point when the collected rakes were then turned on mass.  It also meant that all of the stock was on view and again this created interest because of the unusual/uncommon selection of stock.  However, you need space when you turn the baseboard round and this means that in my case with roughly 4ft 6in turntables sat on a 12 inch wide base, the barriers needed to be a good two feet off the front of the layout to give room for the turntable to turn.  It also meant that this extra space was also needed when not being run at an exhibition.  Such a concept cannot be used with an against the wall layout.  But in the end I think I became dissatsfied because as Edwardian has said, locos turn and trains don't.  Although I was probably the only one who knew, always having the first class carriages behind the locomotive was wrong.  They should have been behind the loco when travelling Northbound and at the end of the rake when travelling southbound.

 

I used cassettes for my next French layout and they seemed to work well, but the rakes were very short and the cassettes easily handled.  Longer rakes would have been a problem I am sure and since the fiddle yard was set behind half the layout (only 8ft long in total), cassettes had to be lifted off, moved around to a table and then turned.  Again this has the "problem" that whole trains have to be turned, and that may offend your principles.  If you are going to use cassettes to give prototypical appearance, then it is more than having a separate cassette for a loco that can be uncoupled, turned, the main rake cassette detached from the layout, the loco inserted and the rake reconnected.  If it is a goods rake you may well have a brake van that will also need to be remarshaled.  It all starts to get a bit messy but it can be done.

 

The current project is going to use a traverser.  Locos will run onto a PECO locolift - which is just a commercial cassette and then turned and moved to the other end of the rake.  The Locolift has the advantage that it can be dropped down onto the track and does not need extra length.  I will still have the issues of the goods brake vans needing to be remarshaled and handling seems to be the easy solution - at least it is just one item of stock.

 

I don't think the perfect solution exists and there will be an element of horses for courses in deciding which one is best for you.

[grahame]

A simple and very positive solution is to have less or stronger detail on the locos, so they can withstand the handling.

It would be nice to have stronger details but that is not always possible and where it is could actually increase costs and prices. And taking away/removing details or having less is not positive - it's a negative and retrograde step.

 

I'd suggest that for those who have a propensity to damage things that they need to look at ways of reducing handling or getting more proficient and careful with picking up models. There are obviously a great many others who do not find it a problem and reducing fidelity and finesse of models would penalise them. To advocate and have less details would seem rather selfish.

 

G.

[BG John]

It would be nice to have stronger details but that is not always possible and where it is could actually increase costs and prices. And taking away/removing details or having less is not positive - it's a negative and retrograde step.

 

I'd suggest that for those who have a propensity to damage things that they need to look at ways of reducing handling or getting more proficient and careful with picking up models. There are obviously a great many others who do not find it a problem and reducing fidelity and finesse of models would penalise them. To advocate and have less details would seem rather selfish.

 

G.

This topic is about "Real Modellers" needing accessories. It could also be argued that destroying the market for accessories by including every fine detail on RTR products is selfish too. Do the majority of buyers appreciate the extra detail, or get annoyed when delicate bits break off when it's being "played with", rather than "operated by a serious enthusiast"? Everyone has accidents, however careful they are, and implying that I or others aren't careful with our models isn't helpful, or fair. Any models I have are required to work (or will be when I have layouts working for them to run on!). I used to do a lot of exhibitions many years ago, and things got handled and knocked when being packed, unpacked, put on and taken off the layout, and used. Missing or broken bits look far worse than them not being there in the first place.

 

Being able to buy add-on bits that tend to be stronger than those included with RTR models keeps small suppliers in business. In the future, when these products come on the secondhand market, how many will still be in a satisfactory condition? Some of them don't even get from China to the first buyer in one piece! It's unlikely that replacement parts will be available for them, so only the "Real Modellers" who can make parts themselves will be able to restore them to a presentable state, while others will have to put up with whatever state they buy them in, or remove much of the remaining bits of fine detail.

[Jeff Smith]

Off topic, I know, but I have thought about a single cassette for both loco and train whereby I turn the cassette, uncouple the loco and run it back on the layout, turn the cassette again and then the turned loco backs into the cassette and pulls forward (locomotives turn, trains don't!).  That might just be less faff than separate loco and train cassettes?

 

Possibly more common in the US/Canada but whole trains are turned on triangular junctions. There is one near Fulton, Bristol.

[grahame]

Everyone has accidents, however careful they are, and implying that I or others aren't careful with our models isn't helpful,

Everyone could have an accident but that can be mitigated with care. You were the one who said they were afraid to handle stock - fortunately I'm not and I guess there are many for whom it is not a problem.

 

There could still be a market (keeping smaller suppliers in business) for those wishing to replace 'fragile' parts with stronger bits. Including fragile details on models doesn't destroy that opportunity and leaving them off is hardly likely to significantly increase demand with many enthusiasts not even prepared to add the extras (usually supplied with new models unfitted and in a poly bag).

 

But I suggest this side thread has run its course now - there are obviously differences in opinion about whether to include details on RTR products and in the meantime manufacturers appear to prefer (or find better sales) by including them. I doubt that is going to change soon especially after Hornby's design clever debacle.

 

G.

 

G.

[Colin_McLeod]

For those with difficulty handling finely detailed models I would suggest visiting e bay where there are hundreds of older more basic models for sale.

[coachmann]

So some people are ham-fisted and expects the rest of the universe to put up with solidly moulded detail on their behalf?  How far do we take cocooning? .

[Edwardian]

Yes, we have got off topic with fiddle-yards and cassettes.  I am coming back to the idea of separate loco cassettes, as this avoids turning any trains.  Train lengths, including loco, for this project are likely to be around 2', with the odd through service at 3'.

 

The benefit of posting comment pieces is that others offer all sorts of useful information and insight, and one's views evolve.

 

3D printing, for example, I really did not mean to focus on it for criticism, but it was the closest example to hand.  I begin to realise that my perception of value is a little out of date!  That said, I would rather spend, say £13 on a printed pair of coach bogies or wagon u/f than up to £20-30 for a full wagon or the Lord alone knows what for a coach.   There is a lot of useful stiff out there.  The cost-conscious must be discriminating.

 

It does throw up the issue of the cost of RTR.  This is often the subject of complaint and I am one of those who are priced out of many new releases (I note Peco's Railway Modeller has recently closed down correspondence on the subject).  But, if you workout the cost of kits and components, RTR is not on the whole the most expensive option!  This probably argues that most RTR is good value, rather than that kits and components are bad value for money.

 

If, however, you struggle with RTR prices, you options in the world of kits and components can be fairly limited! 

 

The point I have not been able to get over is the sheer frustration of knowing that there was, until recently in many cases, a whole bunch of useful kits and components, not yet in most cases replaced with equivalents in new media, that have simply disappeared. 

 

My cri de Coeur is this: "If you are not going to produce these products because (a) you want to retire/are no longer interested (b) are chronically ill, (c ) incompetent, (d) insolvent, or, (e) dead, then for goodness sake give someone else the chance to take over!"

 

The vagaries of life involve outcomes (a) to (e) inclusive.  No one can help these things.  No one objects to these realities.  The frustration is loosing the carefully accrued legacy of the hobby.

 

These ranges simply disappear.  I have made a number of attempts to contact of discover information about several of these, without success.  Some, of no doubt many, examples, spring to mind:

 

- The very promising ABM Railcraft closed due to illness, but that's it, all contact with the outside world ceased. 

 

- Cooperdaft, well there's an enigma wrapped in a mystery if ever there was;  apparently it cannot cope with email or website contact forms as means of communication, or, indeed, with the processes of manufacture or sale.    

 

- BSL Phoenix coach kits.  Like Cooperdaft, there is a Southern Railways Group website offering the products; apparently "The 'Phoenix' range of coaching stock kits is continually being extended", but all attempts to contact via the email supplied have been ignored over a number of years.

 

- Dean Sidings, why does the range need to disappear with retirement?

 

- ABS - not sure what's going on here, but it is certainly not available as it once was

 

- D&S, still has a half-life with limited availability on the qt, but, again, no substitute for the full range being in production.

 

Sometimes moulds wear out, masters are damaged, machines break down and essential stuff mysteriously disappears, but that surely does not explain the loss of more than a portion of what we, collectively, as a hobby, have lost?

 

Where is it? How do we get it back?!

[Guest]

So some people are ham-fisted and expects the rest of the universe to put up with solidly moulded detail on their behalf?  How far do we take cocooning? .

 

Someone says something, and then just sit back and wait for all the snidey comments. Guaranteed. Not singling you out, but you do have your moments. Live and let live. The domain name www.rmbitching.co.uk is available if anyone wants to start a forum purely for grumps and moaners. www.perfectmodellers.co.uk is also available. That would be a barrel of laughs. Not.

[J C Fenton]

Yes, we have got off topic with fiddle-yards and cassettes.  I am coming back to the idea of separate loco cassettes, as this avoids turning any trains.  Train lengths, including loco, for this project are likely to be around 2', with the odd through service at 3'.

 

The benefit of posting comment pieces is that others offer all sorts of useful information and insight, and one's views evolve.

 

3D printing, for example, I really did not mean to focus on it for criticism, but it was the closest example to hand.  I begin to realise that my perception of value is a little out of date!  That said, I would rather spend, say £13 on a printed pair of coach bogies or wagon u/f than up to £20-30 for a full wagon or the Lord alone knows what for a coach.   There is a lot of useful stiff out there.  The cost-conscious must be discriminating.

 

It does throw up the issue of the cost of RTR.  This is often the subject of complaint and I am one of those who are priced out of many new releases (I note Peco's Railway Modeller has recently closed down correspondence on the subject).  But, if you workout the cost of kits and components, RTR is not on the whole the most expensive option!  This probably argues that most RTR is good value, rather than that kits and components are bad value for money.

 

If, however, you struggle with RTR prices, you options in the world of kits and components can be fairly limited! 

 

The point I have not been able to get over is the sheer frustration of knowing that there was, until recently in many cases, a whole bunch of useful kits and components, not yet in most cases replaced with equivalents in new media, that have simply disappeared. 

 

My cri de Coeur is this: "If you are not going to produce these products because (a) you want to retire/are no longer interested (b) are chronically ill, (c ) incompetent, (d) insolvent, or, (e) dead, then for goodness sake give someone else the chance to take over!"

 

The vagaries of life involve outcomes (a) to (e) inclusive.  No one can help these things.  No one objects to these realities.  The frustration is loosing the carefully accrued legacy of the hobby.

 

These ranges simply disappear.  I have made a number of attempts to contact of discover information about several of these, without success.  Some, of no doubt many, examples, spring to mind:

 

- The very promising ABM Railcraft closed due to illness, but that's it, all contact with the outside world ceased. 

 

- Cooperdaft, well there's an enigma wrapped in a mystery if ever there was;  apparently it cannot cope with email or website contact forms as means of communication, or, indeed, with the processes of manufacture or sale.    

 

- BSL Phoenix coach kits.  Like Cooperdaft, there is a Southern Railways Group website offering the products; apparently "The 'Phoenix' range of coaching stock kits is continually being extended", but all attempts to contact via the email supplied have been ignored over a number of years.

 

- Dean Sidings, why does the range need to disappear with retirement?

 

- ABS - not sure what's going on here, but it is certainly not available as it once was

 

- D&S, still has a half-life with limited availability on the qt, but, again, no substitute for the full range being in production.

 

Sometimes moulds wear out, masters are damaged, machines break down and essential stuff mysteriously disappears, but that surely does not explain the loss of more than a portion of what we, collectively, as a hobby, have lost?

 

Where is it? How do we get it back?!

 

Surprised you didn't mention PC/Wheeltapper coach kits.  No need for them to disappear, surely?

[jjb1970]

The US company Scale Trains is applying an interesting approach by offering the same basic model at different levels of detail, for example their gas turbine:

 

https://scaletrains.com/pages/ho-gtel-8500-big-blow-turbine

 

I think the idea has a lot going for it. The issue of models needing to be able to be handled without shedding bits is a legitimate concern. Some are happy with a more basic level of detail. This rivet counter and museum standard (btw I hate this phrase museum quality which has entered the model railway lexicon) offers modellers a choice, and unlike the way Hornby tried to sell Railroad models as main range models with better paint and printing and maybe a few detail enhancements in the case of Scale Trains there do seem to be substantive differences between the two detail levels.