Why is their no budget range for the younger modeller to get into this hobby?

[Steamport Southport]

31 minutes ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

I think the main problems with railroad are the price and availability. Take the schools class, out of stock on Hornby's site, being listed at £95.99... Quite a bit for a 4-4-0 which had it's tooling first introduced I don't know how long ago...

 

I also feel that once a model has new tooling made the old model should shift to railroad.

 

The problem is many of the newer models are quite complicated and have delicate parts. Which probably rules them out of being in a range aimed at youngsters.

 

By newer I mean post 1980ish when models were getting wire handrails and such like. Whilst some are quite robust, others aren't.

 

Look on eBay at all the damaged Hogwarts Express "Castles". I was picking them up for a couple of pounds not long ago. Obviously "playworn". The aim was to use them for parts. Usually things like broken cylinders or buffers. Easily fixed or replaced by better quality. You are getting a reasonable quality Airfix Castle on the cheap.

 

Unfortunately the sellers got wise to that and the prices started going up. This one is taking the proverbial....

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-00-Class-49xx-Hall-5972-Hogwarts-Castle-in-Red-loco-body-shell-R3804-stea/254668229513?hash=item3b4b68cb89:g:1jkAAOSwGOVfIDFl

 

 

 

Jason

[Rockalaucher101]

37 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The problem is many of the newer models are quite complicated and have delicate parts. Which probably rules them out of being in a range aimed at youngsters.

All depends on what we consider youngsters really and if they're taught to be careful.

I started off in the hobby when I was 7, maybe 8 with a Flying Scotsman set (R1039 for context) and despite having wire handrails it still has them all, definitely played with mind so has the odd scuff but nothing broken...

I feel that the models that used to be ringfield are perfect for railroad, like the schools class I mentioned. Bulkier detailing and rods which can take a bit of a beating.

 

One thing to consider is that maybe models from the Triang era (if the tooling still exists) like the 08 could be put into Hornby junior and become battery operated, looking kind of like this.   then use the standard 0-6-0 chassis to bring it into railroad and then you have the full fat one in the railways range. It's kind of a natural progression.

 

I'd like to use the idea of a bicycle and learning to ride. It grows with the rider and changes as their knowledge increases. Starts off small, gets bigger, loses the stabilizers, gets bigger again...

Edited August 24, 2020 by Rockalaucher101
Realigning Text

[PatB]

Duplicate post. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by PatB
Duplicate post

[Firecracker]

1 hour ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

Owain I cannot tell you how much I disagree with you about the older engines. If maintained properly many of them run just as well as newer engines. As for newer engines may I point out to you this video from Sams Trains about the vast range of rubbish made recently and some still in production. These engine are more likely to put of new modellers as they are full price and full of faults. I spend most of my time working on older engines as they are much easier to work on. That is something that newer modellers find a great help. They can buy cheap and then have half a chance getting the engines to work. Plus you only have to look at any of the Oscar Paisley videos on Youtube to show how well they can run.

 

Fair enough, we’ll have to agree to disagree then.  I’m not saying that the cipurrent production is perfect (and apologies if it came across as that, that wasn’t the intention).  There are plenty of lemons out there in current production (I’m sure my Hornby sentinel that only picked up on three wheels and required half the chassis dismantling to sort would put someone off.  I certainly put off sorting it for a year).  I will also give you that older stuff is a lot easier to work on, there’s a Hornby Dublo 08 on the bench for a friend at the moment that requires new brushes (if anyone knows where I can order some from, please shout) which to dismantle required the removal of one screw.  However, I think I’ll struggle to get the low speed running out of it I’ll get out of the Bachman 08 sat next to it.  I’ll agree to disagree on another point with you, that’s the ‘buy cheap’.  Every display of older stuff I’ve seen where it’s in one piece it wasn’t what I’d call cheap.  At Manchester I picked up a Bachman jinty off the secondhand stall for 25quid.  Sold as a poor runner (which turned out to be due to an incinerated gaugemaster DCC chip and pickups full of fluff).  Next to it was a triang Jinty, also tagged as a poor runner, with 40 quid on it.  But that’s just what I’ve seen, there may be stuff out there (and very probably is) that I’m missing.

 

Owain

[Rockalaucher101]

8 minutes ago, Firecracker said:

I picked up a Bachman jinty off the secondhand stall for 25quid.  Sold as a poor runner (which turned out to be due to an incinerated gaugemaster DCC chip and pickups full of fluff). 

I wound up with something similar although minus the decoder. Bought a Bachmann jinty and a Hornby jinty in the same eBay listing, described as non runners with some serious body damage to both. The Bachmann faired better as the Hornby cab had cracked in half.

The reason for them not running though?

Wheels were caked in grime to the point they were basically fully insulated. After a quick clean they worked great.

I suppose that just shows what happens when higher fidelity models are bought by the less experienced.

[Firecracker]

4 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Different market. Magazine reviews take hours of research in an effort to tell you how closely the model represents the prototype. None of the YouTube unboxing reviews I've seen have bothered with anything like this - it's all about the model looking nice. One thing you do get in a magazine review is everything in focus though!

 

Horse for courses. It's perfectly possible what works for you doesn't work for others. I'm also bound to tell you that many of the reviews in the digital edition of BRM come with running videos though.

Right, first up (and this is going to sound like backpedaling and a bit of sycophancy, but I don’t care).  BRM is a lot better now than it was 15 years ago, when I last bought a copy.  

 

However, I strongly agree with your second paragraph.  Magazine reviews miss so much for me.  I want to see something run, how noisy is it, how does it behave over points.  Now I’ve got a BRM subscription as part of my gold membership and yes, the online magazines do have video clips in there.  Model rail,  Hornby magazine and Railway modeller doesn’t (at least, in the dead tree versions I get).  Plus I’m not going to buy a magazine just for a review.  Now I will agree, there’s a lot of the ‘Look at my cool train’ style crap on YouTube, but at the same time there’s decent stuff as well.  Plus its free and I can get a lot of different views very quickly.  The other thing is I might be considering something that’s been out a while, so the magazine review was a year or more ago.   Now I will say this is where the BRM online archive is brilliant.  But I haven’t got access to an archive like that for all the magazines.  Also, looking at what I’ve bought over the last three years in rolling stock, none was bought on the back of a review.  Every one was bought either because I wanted one, it was there at a very good price or simply I liked it (the 101 DMU is a good example of that.  Every review I’ve seen since points out the discrepancy in the bodysides.  Did that make any difference in me buying it?  Not in the slightest.  What reviews have done is bought manufacturers to my attention, so I’ve gone on to buy other of their products.  But to be honest, I’ve got more of that off this forum.

 

As as you say, horses for courses and your mileage may vary.

 

Owain

Edited August 24, 2020 by Firecracker
Lousy English and decided to add a bit.

[Steamport Southport]

3 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi all,

Owain I cannot tell you how much I disagree with you about the older engines. If maintained properly many of them run just as well as newer engines. As for newer engines may I point out to you this video from Sams Trains about the vast range of rubbish made recently and some still in production. These engine are more likely to put of new modellers as they are full price and full of faults. I spend most of my time working on older engines as they are much easier to work on. That is something that newer modellers find a great help. They can buy cheap and then have half a chance getting the engines to work. Plus you only have to look at any of the Oscar Paisley videos on Youtube to show how well they can run.

 

 

 

Maybe if he didn't play with his trains on the carpet he wouldn't have problems with them....

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Rockalaucher101]

5 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

 

Maybe if he didn't play with his trains on the carpet he wouldn't have problems with them....

 

 

 

 

Jason

That is true but he has stated that the track is cleaned regularly. After watching the video I don't think that running on carpet is the main reason a lot of these made the list. The Heljan 1361 he said wouldn't run if you had the base plate screws done tight. I even watched the initial review for that one...

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

One thing to consider is that maybe models from the Triang era (if the tooling still exists) like the 08 could be put into Hornby junior and become battery operated, looking kind of like this.

 

I know the more recent modern image Hornby Junior sets actually use on-board batteries, but does the My First Hornby set in the picture do this? Or does ‘battery operated’ refer to a battery powered controller?

[Rockalaucher101]

2 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I know the more recent modern image Hornby Junior sets actually use on-board batteries, but does the My First Hornby set in the picture do this? Or does ‘battery operated’ refer to a battery powered controller?

It's the controller that's battery powered. Certainly removed the danger of mains voltage buy not the potentially sharp fish plates n metal track.

But my idea is that the trains have onboard batteries like the new junior. Kind of just eluding to the idea that it's really plain paint jobs with no seperately fitted parts, comes with a small track mat and a few buildings but is compatible with main range track, just not mains powered.

 

Does anyone know if the new junior will fit 00 gauge track?

[Steamport Southport]

16 minutes ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

That is true but he has stated that the track is cleaned regularly. After watching the video I don't think that running on carpet is the main reason a lot of these made the list. The Heljan 1361 he said wouldn't run if you had the base plate screws done tight. I even watched the initial review for that one...

 

Clean track is irrelevant. What about fluff, dust, uneven track, etc. ? The Heljan O2 for example is a near £200 model. Certainly not one for messing about with on a carpet.

 

Definitely invalidated any warranty on the items he uses.  

 

 

 

Jason

[kevinlms]

11 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Clean track is irrelevant. What about fluff, dust, uneven track, etc. ? The Heljan O2 for example is a near £200 model. Certainly not one for messing about with on a carpet.

 

Definitely invalidated any warranty on the items he uses.  

 

 

 

Jason

Agreed, model railways should NEVER be allowed anywhere a carpet. They are mortal enemies!

 

Or else equivalent to using WD-40 as a lubricant.

[009 micro modeller]

46 minutes ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

Does anyone know if the new junior will fit 00 gauge track?

 

I believe it does but the couplings aren’t compatible - does anyone actually have a set to confirm?

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

Does anyone know if the new junior will fit 00 gauge track?

 

I reviewed it when it came out and the answer is - sort of.

 

Plain track is fine, but it doesn't like points, the B2B's are too tight. I replaced some of the wheels with Romfords which solves, the problem but isn't likely to be something anyone else does.

[DK123GWR]

24 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

couplings aren’t compatible

I wouldn't have thought that's important as, so far as I can remember, they are all MUs.

[009 micro modeller]

53 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I reviewed it when it came out and the answer is - sort of.

 

Plain track is fine, but it doesn't like points, the B2B's are too tight. I replaced some of the wheels with Romfords which solves, the problem but isn't likely to be something anyone else does.

 

Are they solid moulded wheels and axles (i.e. no way of minutely adjusting the back to back)?

[RJS1977]

5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The problem is many of the newer models are quite complicated and have delicate parts. Which probably rules them out of being in a range aimed at youngsters.

 

By newer I mean post 1980ish when models were getting wire handrails and such like. Whilst some are quite robust, others aren't.

 

 

Which is exactly the period when I and others of my generation were saving up our pocket money and buying/being given those models for Christmas.

 

My Lima 94XX has taken a few knocks over the years and lost one of its filler caps, but it still gets run from time to time, as does my Lima 33 and my father's Lima Western (often operated by me as a boy on his layout).

 

Wire handrails aren't too bad to put back in - indeed I can remember a photo in 'Junior Modeller' showing a schoolboy adding handrails to an older model. Learning how to repair things (if you haven't lost the bits!) is an important step in the hobby.

[Phil Parker]

45 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Are they solid moulded wheels and axles (i.e. no way of minutely adjusting the back to back)?

 

If I could have adjusted the B2B, I wouldn't have replaced them.

[RJS1977]

21 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I think this is true to an extent - when I bought a few bits and pieces for a new layout a few weeks ago (nothing fancy apart from a small quantity of new track - the rest was just plastic sheet and similar) I was slightly shocked at the cost - but it makes sense as it all adds up. By contrast, I don’t really need to buy any stock as I already have it, but even if I was starting from nothing I would only need a loco and a few wagons. It was more expensive than expected as my stocks of various materials were all starting to run out, and of course a beginner will have to buy scenic items, track, baseboard materials AND rolling stock all at the same time. This is partly why I suggested easy kit-built stock earlier on - it would give the beginner a chance to indulge a deeper and possibly more bespoke railway interest and have the skills and sense of achievement from making something fairly early on, even if they don’t yet have the means or ability to build a whole layout. But even then it brings the focus back to stock (which might not be what our beginner particularly wants to build) which misses the point.

 

A beginner doesn't need to buy scenic items at the same time as everything else - they're usually the last thing to be bought. Even track can gradually be expanded (as of course can rolling stock).

 

And whilst it is quite easy to spend a lot of money on scenery, it doesn't all have to be bought at once - and if you do, it looks like you've bought a lot, whereas if all you've bought for the same amount of money is a Heljan saddle tank, it doesn't look so much.

 

Parents, uncles, aunts, etc can all chip in a few trees, building kits, etc at Christmas without too much outlay, and the person receiving them gets a lot of presents (and has the fun of assembling them!)

[DavidB-AU]

19 hours ago, Pandora said:

Does anyone recall the Lone Star 000 range of track locos wagons coaches?  There was an A4, a Princess, diesel shunter and others which escape memory, ( all rather crude but recognisable) lacking motors simply place the trains  on the plastic track and move by hand.

 

Lone Star was originally push along when released in 1957 but electric versions were released in 1960.

 

Cheers

David

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

A beginner doesn't need to buy scenic items at the same time as everything else - they're usually the last thing to be bought. Even track can gradually be expanded (as of course can rolling stock).

 

And whilst it is quite easy to spend a lot of money on scenery, it doesn't all have to be bought at once - and if you do, it looks like you've bought a lot, whereas if all you've bought for the same amount of money is a Heljan saddle tank, it doesn't look so much.

 

Parents, uncles, aunts, etc can all chip in a few trees, building kits, etc at Christmas without too much outlay, and the person receiving them gets a lot of presents (and has the fun of assembling them!)

Which of course explains where all those Hornby and other brand tunnels get sold!

Always amazing why the builders of the prototype railway, went straight for the only hill around.

 

Yes, I did receive one!

[kevinlms]

20 hours ago, PatB said:

Something that social media, etc. is doing, is broadening the pool of those publishing material in the field of model (and, I would guess, prototype) railways. 

 

I look at my collection of magazines from the 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s, and most of the writing pool is made up of surprisingly few names. I haven't done a count, but I would be surprised if the total, over those 4 decades, came close to even 1000 different writers. Gut feeling tells me it's probably nearer 500, most of whom might have submitted only a single article. Even at the upper number, considering the supposed universality of the hobby at the time, that's really not a big sample getting to put forward, to a wide audience, their view on what the hobby should be. 

 

Whether this democratisation of output is a uniform good thing is, perhaps, open to debate, but I think it is inevitable that it will shape the hobby in ways with which we are not yet familiar. 

You are probably correct in not really that many writers.

 

Fact is not that many people want to write about their modelling experiences. As in writing the article and including, photos, diagrams etc. It is probably easier now with PC's and phones that you can instantly take a photo, check it for quality and retake if required (although many on eBay, seem not to have mastered this!).

It still means that some preparation is required for writing an article to get published in a magazine.

 

Yes, many write small amounts here on RMweb, but that's usually equivalent to writing a 'letter to the editor'.

[Phil Parker]

25 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Fact is not that many people want to write about their modelling experiences. As in writing the article and including, photos, diagrams etc. It is probably easier now with PC's and phones that you can instantly take a photo, check it for quality and retake if required (although many on eBay, seem not to have mastered this!).

It still means that some preparation is required for writing an article to get published in a magazine.

 

Not ENOUGH people write about their modelling experiences - model railway magazines have always been hungry for content and are a fairly easy way to get yourself into print and earn a few quid. Try any other branch of publishing and it's a far harder job! That said, the idea of putting together 700+ words scares people. It's far easier to knock off a few lines on RMweb or Facebook. Making a YouTube video isn't that hard either and we have now had several generations for whom "being on the telly" is the panicle of success. All magazines want new writers and readers are always interested in what other people have done. In the days of yore, the photography was the hard bit but digital has made this a lot easier.

 

28 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

you can instantly take a photo, check it for quality and retake if required

 

You can, but quite a lot of people don't bother with the checking bit. When putting together Garden Rail, I can fix most things, but if it's out of focus or you missed part of the thing you are photographing, no amount of post-production magic can fix that! See also far too many YouTube videos... (Rant over)

[009 micro modeller]

10 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Not ENOUGH people write about their modelling experiences - model railway magazines have always been hungry for content and are a fairly easy way to get yourself into print and earn a few quid. Try any other branch of publishing and it's a far harder job! That said, the idea of putting together 700+ words scares people.

 

I’m always unsure whether it’s appropriate for me to speculatively send in an article to magazines, or whether they ask for good modellers to write them. I have done in the past for 009 News, but that is slightly different as it’s a society magazine for members to share their modelling and writers are (understandably and correctly IMHO) not paid.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that writing an article for a railway modelling magazine is quite difficult. So many have written before about layout building. How do you write an article that can present it in some way that is entertaining and innovative? Some have the gift. I recall David Jenkinson being one of them but then he was a professional educator.

 

I was amazed that RM recently won an award. The old-fashioned design of RM (not changed in fifty years if you ignore colour printing) detracts from the pleasure of reading the articles.