Would we accept less detailed models

[darrel]

OK I will possibly be opening up a big can of worms with this, but hear me out.

 

Over the last 25 years we have seen models become more and more detailed rtr models are now better than ever. However the extra detail comes at a price literally prices for a lot of new models are becoming perhaps too expensive. I'm not going to give specific examples, however there are one or two new models where I may have been tempted but was put off by the price.

 

One area of modern image which has been overlooked by manufacturers is EMUs particularly 25kv EMUs. I have been told in the past that one reason is that a 3 or 4 car EMU would be too expensive. The same could be said for many DMU classes which have not been produced. 

 

would we as modelers be prepared to accept less detailed models? 

 

Looking at multiple units if a manufacturer was to produce a EMU or DMU to the detail standard of a Lima class 101 or a Hornby 110 but at a price range of £100 for a 2 car or £150 for a 3 car would we accept that. I'm talking about perhaps moulded handrails or having holes in the model for handrails and a separate sprue with handrails for you to fit yourself, like vi trains did with class 37s or lima class 66s. What I'm not talking about is having underframe detail like a Lima class 156. 

 

Given that a fully detailed 3 car EMU would be somewhere in the range of £400 a model costing £150 would be more friendly on the wallet. 

 

Most EMUs don't have a lot of handrails though first generation EMUs have separate brake pipes and MU cables again these could be fitted by the modeller. 

 

Multiple units wouldn't need to have powerful motors like a locomotive something similar to the motor in a Hornby railroad locomotive would be good enough. Working lights should be cheap given the small cost of LED lights. 

 

How would we feel about having a basic detail model at a reasonable price compared to a fully detailed model at a much higher price. Would we accept the compromise if it means we could have models of prototypes that would not otherwise be made? 

 

I would love to see a rtr class 303 and would be happy to have to add extra detail myself. At £150 I would buy lots of them. However at £400 I would buy less. 

 

I grew up with Lima models and accepted having to detail them to get what I wanted. Have we maybe become spoiled with the fantastic detail we see today? 

 

 

 

 

[AY Mod]

You're thinking too tame! A Facebook brain donor posted this yesterday in response to one of Hornby's posts:

 

 

From https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=552390533575163&set=a.493244886156395

 

[APOLLO]

Wasn't the Hornby 2BIL a pared down in detail (i.e.cast on) "design clever" EMU ?

 

A nice model.

 

Brit15

[RedgateModels]

5 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

You're thinking too tame! A Facebook brain donor posted this yesterday in response to one of Hornby's posts:

 

 

From https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=552390533575163&set=a.493244886156395

 

 

The post above it is as bad .....

[The Johnster]

I'd be ok with less detailed model if some of the detail was left off entirely instead of being moulded on (handrails, doorknobs, grab handles, that sort of thing).  So long as the model was to scale dimensions, I'd be happy to add detail myself, and possibly to paint the model as well.  But it would have to be very cheap in order to be a worthwhile saving over a complete model after you'd acquired and fitted the detail, paint, transfers and other working up, even for a poverty stricken poor old pensioner like me (cue tragic violins as I sit in my freezing flat in my fingerless mitts warming myself with a dying candle).  And I doubt production costs for what would be a nice market would be controllable to the required degree, not that I'm any sort of expert in production engineering costing...

 

I'd want to see something like sub-£50 for a loco, sub-£20 for a coach, and sub-£10 for a wagon or I'd rather save up and buy full-fat, especially where liveries are complex, and this probably ain't gonna fly!

 

I like the way you're thinking, though, darrel.  Some companies go some way towards this, such as Dapol with unpainted wagons, or Replica with various mk1 coach components, but these are on the back of redacted tooling that they also produce as full-fat models.  New toolings would need to recover their investment at a rate far too fast for our ideas!

 

And it can be the top of a slippery slope.  I have a Hornby 'design clever' LNER 'long' CCT that I've worked up with decent buffers and weathering, for example; looks the part but nothing but problems, won't propel reliably on 30" radius curves, bloody awful thing, will replace with Parkside eventually.

[whart57]

Fifty years ago I got into scratch-building and kit-building because that was the only way to be able to model the trains I wanted. (Which were SE&CR so would I have done so if that railway had been as well covered then as it is now). Now I have had fifty years of fun, which admittedly has involved very little watching trains go round, and can indulge myself in modelling obscure prototypes like the State Railway of Thailand or 18" gauge tramways.

 

So when people ask "why doesn't Hornby/Bachman/Dapol/Heljan/etc produce" I do wonder whether people ask too much.

[georgeds]

I am less interested in every single fiddly separately applied detail, but I do care about lighting functions etc. A "design clever" approach with good lighting/sound options would definitely appeal to me

[whart57]

Another thought. 3D printing is a potential way to get those basic models. I have made a Class 158 set for my Thai layout from bodies sourced from Shapeways as well as a mid-Victorian Sharp Stewart single using 3D printed components as a core. These are in 3mm scale and that brings me to my point, the costs of 3D prints is related to the volume of plastic used so 4mm scale is much more expensive than 3mm scale which is turn is more expensive than N.

[Bernard Lamb]

I suppose it is rather connected with a persons background.

I seem to have upset a few people on the topic of KR and their business policy recently, so here goes on this one.

I worked for the leading compny in the world in its field. As such I was educated to believe in continuous improvement. Improve or go under was the saying.

There is a case to make for some  German companies going too fast and the market not keeping up, but the firms that survived seem to still be turning out better and better products.

Nobody has a divine right to purchase any item. If you cannot afford it them probably you are not the target market.

In a few years time when the people with large amounts of surrplus cash are no longer around ( The market that I believe the new Hornby Dublo models are aimed at, plus a few other 'collectors items') then it might be time for a rethink. I doubt it as the technology to produce more detailed models at lower prices might have come into play by then.

Bernard

 

[Paddy]

Hi Folks,

 

This one goes around and around and the answer always seems to come down to "if there was a huge market for such models then a manufacturer would service it".

 

At the end of the day, we are not talking about the models here but rather affordability which is subjective and highly personal. One person may look at the new Hornby Dublo locomotives and consider them a bargain, others less so. Ultimately, if there is a market for models at these prices they will sell in sufficient numbers. Rest assured, if the market for "expensive" (subjective) highly detailed models dries up the manufacturers will do something different.

 

One could argue that Hornby is trying this with TT:120 as the amount of separately fitted detail on these models is less and the prices keener...

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

[Wheatley]

Yes, I would, especially when it comes to wagons. Unless it's something with an open chassis (like a tank wagon) no-one needs the chassis framing, buffer springs, dragbox, vac pipe etc tooled up on the underneath of a box van or open, certainly not to the extent that it pushes the RRP up to £30 for a bog standard 17'6" wagon.   

 

If it's something complex with a lot of visible (when it's the right way up) twiddly bits like an HAA, Presflow, 21T hopper then then fair enough, but a lot of modern RTR wagons  are over-specced. 

 

I know I'm a miserly old curmudgeon and they sell out anyway, but I can't remember the last time I bought a RTR van or open for this reason. For the last few years  RTR purchases have been awkward shapes or one-offs like horseboxes, bolsters, brakevans, etc - everything else has been serviced via kits  at £10-£15 or so a pop and a  couple of hours to build it.    

[Mike_Walker]

Most certainly!  I think the current arms race for ever more detail is getting out of hand.  Actually I was debating this with the staff at one of our leading model railway emporiums only last week and they agreed things have gone too far with the result that bits fall off as soon as they are removed from the box or subjected to running on a layout.  They then have the customer, often disgruntled, returning the item for replacement.

 

It seems the hobby is increasingly dividing into two camps, those of us who actually want to run our models on a layout and those that simply collect and put them in a display cabinet, although many never leave their boxes as that, apparently, devalues them.   

 

For those of us in the former group do we really need fully detailed underframes on wagons or luggage racks in coaches neither of which can be seen when running on a layout?  I did, briefly, consider buying an Accurascale Siphon to replace my "breathed on" Lima one but on reflection thought why?  The superbly detailed underframe will never be visible when running and the small body details will similarly become invisible when running and viewed from the typical 6' viewing distance.  And any details that drop off my Lima one are down to my shoddy workmanship - not that I'm suggesting for a moment AS inflicts such on us!  That said, I shall be replacing my two aging Airfix-era B sets with the new Rapido ones but I do wish they didn't have so many tiny details which will not be seen, reduce the robustness of the product and merely push the cost up to eye-watering levels. 

 

There are other things that drive me nuts.  Firebox flicker/glow.  What's that about?  No fireman would leave the fire door open for long periods and why do diesel or electric locos or MUs always have cab lights lit up.  Again, no driver would even think of going out with the cab lights on - all you'd see would be your own reflection in the windscreen that instantly becomes a mirror!  Yes, I know DCC enables you to select these functions but not everyone uses DCC either because they choose not to (we like to stick with what we grew up with and understand) or can't afford it.

 

As for the collectors market, again, these details can only be seen either by handling the model (with the risk of said bits dropping off) or displaying them standing on a mirror.   Perhaps I'm in a minority here, but I don't get it...

 

As for saying "Nobody has a divine right to purchase any item. If you cannot afford it them probably you are not the target market."  I think that's a bit offensive and smacks of superiority over those unfortunate enough not to have huge personal disposable incomes.

 

When I first entered the hobby, around six decades ago, model railways was a hobby that virtually anyone could enjoy - I saved a tanner a week from my pocket money to buy a Triang Jinty - but it seems that today it's rapidly heading towards being only for the likes of Peter Waterman, Rod Stewart, Jools Holland or those with similarly deep pockets.  Some may argue that we should wait for these items to come on the second hand market but why should we be denied the opportunity of acquiring, new, robust and affordable models?

 

[Legend]

Yes.

 

Absolutely I'd accept less detail for something at a reasonable price . Completely accept your premise.

 

It obviously still has to be dimensionally correct and have a great level of decoration , but id compromise on opening doors, operating fans , separately fitted details etc etc

 

One of the things that has added to complexity /cost  in a 2/3/4 car unit is the need to have electrically connected couplings  so that it can be controlled by one decoder .  Id happily accept something with simpler couplings if it was the difference between a model being viable and appearing and not appearing at all - but then I'm an analogue user.

 

Also love a 303 emu . As you say at £150-£200 a pop we would buy more  Caley Blue, BR Blue, BR Blue Grey, Strathclyde Orange . Yes please !

[JDW]

I agree with both @darrel's premise and @Mike_Walker's comments. I've no doubt there's a place for the high-fidelity super-detailed end of the range, and some of the latest models are fantastic. But at the same time, they are definitely at the top end of the hobby in terms of their realism and their price. I said over on the Hornby thread that I don't think it's unreasonable to produce a range which is largely lo-fi rather than hi-fi models as per the diesel/electric range for 2023 - I think it's a separate argument to the one about how often models should be re-issued in new liveries and whether they're wrong not to have a (say) class 60 in the range for 2023 and whether that means another manufacturer should do a better one. 

 

Certainly for me, the cost is getting prohibitive. Could I afford to go and buy a new Bachmann 158 or three to replace some of my fleet of original ones? As it happens, I could. But would it represent good value to me, at over double the price? No, it wouldn't. And while the Lime/Hornby 156 will never live up to the same standard as the Realtrack one, the same applies. My detailed ones, at around half the cost, even with some remotored for smoother running, are good enough, and one at twice the cost wouldn't have twice the value to me, as good as it is. 

 

I think the Hornby 110 referred to in the first post is maybe a bit low-brow, it was good for it's time but maybe just a tad basic compared to the finesse of some newer but still basic models. Something along the lines of the Lima 101 or 60 though (and I mean level of detail, not level of accuracy/otherwise of those particular models) shouldn't be too hard, and could leave scope for improvements by those who want to do some modelling whilst satisfying a large chunk of modellers' needs. Something along the lines of the Bratchell Models EMUs would sell to many people, I imagine, and at RTR production volumes would hopefully be significantly cheaper than the £400+ for a ready-to-motorise Bratchell model 

(to be clear, that's an example not a criticism of Bratchell's prices, which are no doubt necessary due to the bespoke nature of their product, nor a suggestion that an RTR manufacturer should try and copy Bratchell's range, just an example of more basic and possibly niche models which people might accept as a compromise between it being available and viable or not)

 

It seems that there's a constant climb to be at the top, but little left underneath for those at the lower end of the budget or detail range. For some, the detail's not needed or wanted, for others the cost isn't bearable, and between them it feels as if there's more and more of a barrier to entry to the hobby. WIthout knowing the cost of manufacture, it's hard to really judge, but as I said on the Hornby thread, I think something like the ex-Lima 101 has a place, and can see the Network Rail one being popular despite its basic nature, as well as the Strathclyde one, but think even for Railroad range models, the price point is pushing beyond what most purchasers might think is appropriate. 

 

In terms of sound, light, etc, it's a hard call as some will want, some wont, some will want one and not the other,... The cost of either adding electrical couplings to control it all or adding multiple decoders is also a factor. Would I buy a slightly more basic model without  some of that? No interior lights or opening doors or sound effects? Yes, I probably would. A WYPTE 321/9 maybe, or a class 151, at around £50 per vehicle for an RTR model I'd be interested, but above that and again it becomes hard to justify.

 

But what do you do, produce a basic model that satisfies some people, or a super-detail one that satisfies some others? I suspect the profit margins on the one you can sell for the higher price might be greater, despite the level of extra assembly needed. 

[Mike_Walker]

The point is that the race for ever more detail appears to be self-fulfilling.  Before these details started to be fitted by manufacturer X then followed by Y plying top trumps was there actually a demand from the majority of modellers for them?  But, once they've appeared it becomes the norm that becomes the norm that every one aspires to or demands.  What makes me laugh is how those often demanding more detail then complain about the spiralling costs.  Do they think it should be provided without adding to the cost?

 

[Reorte]

Well ignorance is bliss when it comes to detail, so I'm likely to not notice it's not there since I'm rarely knowledgable enough about the real thing. But that said once I know and it's missing... So I'd prefer the most I can get.

 

Touching on what some others have said I do think a good compromise is to not go to the extremes of detail, keep the price down, but try to avoid doing anything (like the up-thread mentioned moulded handrails) that make adding the extra detailing yourself difficult should you want it. I'd hazard a guess that the type of modeller who most wants that level of detail is most likely to be the type capable of adding it (which probably contradicts my above "prefer the most I can get", but hey).

Edited January 13, 2023 by Reorte

[Paddy]

Hi Folks,

 

Remember that Hornby tried lower spec models with Design Clever and got lambasted for it. It would be a brave manufacturer who went down this route again. In Hornby’s defence they do have Railroad and Railroad Plus, the latter which I believe is a great idea.

Mind you, the prices of Railroad models are steadily rising so how long before similar criticism are leveled at those models?
 

Bottom line, the days of low cost, high specification models is behind us as that was a short term “benefit” from Chinese manufacturing and globalisation.

 

The positive thing with OO is that we have enjoyed several decades of highly detailed models with reasonably large batches resulting in a plentiful supply of pre-loved models. An example is the range of Mainline wagons from the 1970/80s which are lovely models, well decorated and readily available (often as new in box) for a few pounds - a bargain.

 

Kind regards 

 

Paddy

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Paddy

[Legend]

11 minutes ago, Paddy said:

Hi Folks,

 

Remember that Hornby tried lower spec models with Design Clever and got lambasted for it. It would be a brave manufacturer who went down this route again. In Hornby’s defence they do have Railroad and Railroad Plus, the latter which I believe is a great idea.

Mind you, the prices of Railroad models are steadily rising so how long before similar criticism are leveled at those models?
 

Bottom line, the days of low cost, high specification models is behind us as that was a short term “benefit” from Chinese manufacturing and globalisation.

 

The positive thing with OO is that we have enjoyed several decades of highly detailed models with reasonably large batches resulting in a plentiful supply of pre-loved models. An example is the range of Mainline wagons from the 1970/80s which are lovely models, well decorated and readily available (often as new in box) for a few pounds - a bargain.

 

Kind regards 

 

Paddy

 

 

Design Clever as a concept was OK it was just how it was introduced and the fact that it was applying to main range models (with no apparent reduction in price) that was the issue. 

 

The Southern Electric was fine - was it a 2 BIL or 2 HAL or both?

 

Apply Design Clever concepts exclusively to the Railroad range and charge appropriately then it should be fine . id happily settle for a "Design Clever" 303  v none at all

 

 

 

 

[Phatbob]

So long as these basic models are corectly dimentioned and those details that are fitted are correct, bring it on.  A highly detailed model that's the wrong size and shape is not going to sell to me at any price (no examples will be cited by me as the laws of libel apply to the interweb). 

IMHO such basic models would need to be complete enough to be painted and lined.  I'd be happy to add numbers etc.  This would be perhaps an advantage for wagons and coaches, where one might desire far more than one of each?

I have a fleet of "design clever" 2BILs and 2HALs that have been detaileded, renumberd and what not and I'm very happy with them.  In fact, how about a "tin HAL" to the same specification please Hornby?

[Andy Hayter]

WE have been through this discussion several times and no doubt will do so again in the future - which is not to say that it is wrong to discuss it now.

 

I am uncertain whether things have moved enough that the conclusions will be any different from the last time this was discussed.

 

There are however some strange misconceptions out there.

Do we really think that a potentially £400 EMU set will suddenly fall to £150 by removing sprung buffers, moulded on hand rails etc.?  I would suggest the model would still be £300+.

If modellers are uninterested in underframe detail, how much more important is it to a collector who never takes the model out of its box - or even its tissue paper outer wrapper?

Do we need sound and lighting?  Well I will take that one stage further and ask do we need DCC ready at all.  People can solder their decoders on  and rewire as necessary.  That idea of course will cause offence to many but would not bother me but I stress is not seriously suggested.

 

The issue will always be that what is unimportant to you, might be an essential for me and vice versa.  The current manufacturers would seem to be content in trying to cover as many options as they sensibly can

 

Lima is oft used as the cheap and cheerful business model. 

Remember that was the best part of 35 years ago so inflation will have made them rather less cheap today. 

As for cheerful, remember also that a number of locos had a poor reputation for running.  Not that that should bother the collector, but I bet it would. 

And remember further that on the back of this much heralded wonder business model, when the economy turned down, Lima went bust.

 

Hornby tried "design clever" and then "Railroad Range"  and while neither was a complete disaster, neither took over the market.  Both have been heavily criticised in some quarters.  

 

AS perhaps my final evidence that the market is not yet ready, look at the new UK market entrants like Rapido or Accurascale.   Are they aiming at the less detailed end of the market?  Is there evidence that they are failing by offering bells and whistles?  

 

[JDW]

1 minute ago, Andy Hayter said:

[...]

Do we need sound and lighting?  Well I will take that one stage further and ask do we need DCC ready at all.  People can solder their decoders on  and rewire as necessary.  That idea of course will cause offence to many but would not bother me but I stress is not seriously suggested.

[...]

As perhaps my final evidence that the market is not yet ready, look at the new UK market entrants like Rapido or Accurascale.   Are they aiming at the less detailed end of the market?  Is there evidence that they are failing by offering bells and whistles?  

 

 

Just picking up on these two points, I think the need for DCC-ready is a consequence of the other factors, sound, lights, etc. Most people could easily solder in a DCC chip to a Lima 47 or Bachmann 158 a decade ago. Trying to make sure you get all the increasingly tiny fine wires into all the right places on a DCC sound model instead of a 21-pin socket on the other hand...

 

I agree with the second bit and wonder if perhaps there's an argument for market differentiation, with the likes of Accurascale or SLW producing those super-fine models that will appeal to those with the knowledge and budget, and someone like Hornby catering to the slightly more basic design-clever side of things. It won't happen, of course, as everyone will want the kudos of the hi-spec range. I wouldn't suggest the likes of Accurascale would be failing by positioning themselves where they are, but at the same time I imagine that a lot of people at entry-level or who are more towards the 'train set' end of the hobby possibly wouldn't consider those models. It's great to set the bar high across the board, but if it's too high for new entrants to join the hobby and keep bringing new money, then where will we be in 20 years time?

[john new]

Yes to the OPs original question but then I am still happy buying older models 2nd hand, moulded hand rails and all.  Is there a business case? I doubt that there is unless you get right down to the level of the real cheapo “classic trains” battery sets, and again coming back to the business case Uk prototypes would probably be too restricted a market to generate the volume sales needed to get the prices down.

[Legend]

7 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

WE have been through this discussion several times and no doubt will do so again in the future - which is not to say that it is wrong to discuss it now.

 

I am uncertain whether things have moved enough that the conclusions will be any different from the last time this was discussed.

 

There are however some strange misconceptions out there.

Do we really think that a potentially £400 EMU set will suddenly fall to £150 by removing sprung buffers, moulded on hand rails etc.?  I would suggest the model would still be £300+.

 

 

 

I think it has moved on because prices have moved on .

 

While £150 is ambitious for a three car mu , £200 maybe isn't

 

I know its comparing Apples with Oranges  but compare a singing and dancing Bachmann 158 @ £280 compared to a Hornby Railroad 101 at £135. Yes obviously wildly different models but both two car dmus . One is 48% of the price of the other (I know Bachmann do a 101  but I cant find the price)

 

Yes there's definitely money to be made at the top end , attracting Accurascale , Rapido , Bachmann etc  but I think there's a market at the lower end too . So do Hornby or they wouldnt be introducing new Railroad items . 

[ColinK]

I’m in general agreement, to me there is no point in adding details that cannot be seen, makes the model more expensive for no benefit.  Likewise, I find that lots of the fine details come off in use, so I’m happy to do without them and have a cheaper model.

 

I would be happy with unpainted wagons.  It would be great to gave some unpainted tank wagons so I could chose the livery I want, paint and apply lettering myself.  Happy if they came as a simple kit eg fit wheels then clip body and chassis together. Anyone remember Hornby CKD models?

 

Heljan’s recent peak came with a unmumbered option which I bought, far easier just to add numbers of my choice without first having to remove the factory applied numbers which can lead to paintwork damage.

 

I’ve no plans to replace my 31s, 37s, 47s and 55s with the new  highly detailed models, rather spend the £ on something else.

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hello all,

 

The over-riding factor in the cost of any model is the numbers you expect to make.

 

No OHLE unit (and I am a big fan of them) in N or 00 is going to sell as many units as, say, a Class 47.   But the tooling per vehicle remains the same, so those costs have to be amortised over a smaller number of models.

 

If we were making and selling 50,000 EMUs then the unit cost would be significantly lower, but modern production runs are far lower than this.  And tooling suites have a limited life - we are already seeing calls for models produced as recently as 2010 to be 'retooled to modern standards' on this forum.

 

The costs of a model are a combination of research, CAD design work, tooling (cutting moulds), moulded parts, motors, springs, wire, PCBs etc, painting, printing and assembly.  Then there are the shipping costs and mark ups for the factory, manufacturer and retailer to incorporate.  And of course VAT.  

 

Of these, and bearing in mind the demand that the model's 'shape' is right so CAD revisions may add more to the cost - only assembly and some parts costs would be reduced by a simpler model.  My estimate would be that a 'design clever' OHLE unit as described by the OP would probably cost around £375 instead of £400.  Is that saving worth it?  I don't think so.

 

There is another factor too: I don't know of any manufacturer that wants to be known for being 'less detailed but cheap' - who would?

 

Furthermore, Revolution and (I suspect) other companies already make decisions based around minimising costs all the time.  No one is trying to make models more expensive.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.