Would we accept less detailed models

[andyman7]

I think the challenge in this area is revealed by the sentiments in the first few posts:

- Yes, but leave the detail off so I can add it myself and enhance paintwork

- Yes but let's have good light/sound options

- Yes but includes sprues of detail parts for people to fit

 

The problem is that a less expensive RTR model still needs to be RTR, Both Hornby and ViTrains found that requiring people to add parts or numbers to make the model look complete was not popular - this is not the same as bags of 'extra' details. Less powerful motor - not really a big saving, the actual motor in a modern model is a few £ at most. Heft, weight and flywheels add cost, as much to shipping and pack protection as anything

 

So the 'cost saving' in the model is only workable by finding the 'right' savings. I would certainly go for fully decorated but less complex EMUs and DMUs - you only have to look at a Bratchell or Britannia Models built example to see that as supplied, the detailing is quite basic. But I can understand the challenge of trying to please too many markets and failing.  

[andyman7]

5 minutes ago, Revolution Ben said:

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?

 

It worked for many years for Lima 🙂
But I recognise that is in a past world

[Legend]

4 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

It worked for many years for Lima 🙂
But I recognise that is in a past world

 

And its working in Railroad

 

What about Piko? I frequently see them mentioned  as having three specification levels 

[wombatofludham]

Perhaps the way forward for multiple unit models is savings plans, either via a retailer or with the manufacturer as Accurascale are doing rather than trying to scale back on model quality especially if the saving is only minimal.  Breaking the payments down into chunks might not be so bad, the retailer/manufacturer has a confirmed order, the buyer knows the payment schedule so can plan accordingly, although it does mean the retailer or manufacturer has to have the additional admin and worry of becoming a de facto finance house.

[john new]

29 minutes ago, ColinK said:

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.

Yes I do remember CKD and also the reason - a kit did not attract one of the then taxes (IIRC 33% Purchase Tax) so the same model could be sold for less than if pre-assembled.   Given the relative simplicity of the screw together Tri-Ang models it made sense then, but that tax advantage wouldn’t apply today.

[jjb1970]

I like Japanese trains, and have quite a few Japanese models. Japanese manufacturers have taken a very different path to others and the hobby in Japan has evolved in its own way.

 

Some of that would not be popular with many in Europe and the US. Digital is a small niche in Japan, sound also a small niche. In N they do not bother with overhead catenary and sprung pantographs, they use masts to give an illusion of overhead systems and poseable pantographs (I think it works a lot better than it might sound). Both Kato and Tomix make system track with ballast, many serious modellers in the rest of the world hate it but it is very easy to use and can be used to make seriously impressive layouts.

 

The upside is that mechanisms are superb, which gives trains beautifully smooth and quiet performance. They make a huge effort to get shape and overall look right, which given the complex and in some cases bizarre contours of some Japanese trains is critical to getting things right. They implement a design clever approach, they apply fine detail where it is visible and makes a difference, but don't bother applying detail which won't be seen.

 

In HO Tomix have a two tier structure. The base models are identical, the standard range are almost semi-kits and come with a mountain of user applied detail parts, which are mainly plastic. The prestige models are factory finished except for numbers, with details applied by the factory using photo-etched metal, fine wire, lost wax castings etc appropriately painted and with allocation plates attached. That offers customers a choice, you can save money and do a lot of work, or pay more (and it is a lot more, around twice the price) to get a factory finished model which is finished to a higher standard.

 

Kato have taken a different path in HO and gone down the path of accurate but less detailed models. They sell detail add-on packs to super detail them. The result is the basic models are very well priced, and if you want more detail you can upgrade them aftermarket. Kato also do limited production of factory super detailed models for those who'd rather pay someone else to do it.

 

In combination with huge production numbers the result is that in N gauge they offer superb models, beautifully packaged, for prices which could make European modellers weep. HO can be expensive (Tomix Prestige models are outstanding, but not cheap, and once you go into brass it really is a case that if you need to ask the price you probably can't afford it) but even in HO people might be surprised. Overall they've avoided a detail arms race and concentrate on sweet running accurate models designed for use on layouts.

 

Chinese manufacturers on the other hand have gone full on into a detail arms race. Companies like ChangMing, Haidar, Orangutan/XingXing, N27, MTC etc make exquisite models which are among the finest anywhere. They're also expensive (despite what some might expect, Chinese models are not cheap), but more problematically getting the things out of the box can be a nightmare and handling them requires extreme care.

 

Just a few thoughts. I think well done 'design clever' models are a sound idea, put effort into where it counts.

[bmthtrains - David]

To correct the OP, there isn’t a lack of EMUs in the hobby. Perhaps in OO gauge (which all general discussions seem to assume is the only scale anyone models in), but there are plenty in N: 319, 320, 321,350, 390, 800 and soon the 313…

 

Would I accept less detail though? Probably. But it is more the (to me unnecessary) features that I could live without. Cab lights, rotating fans, opening doors, etc. I want robust models that run reliably with a good level of detail and nothing more. In the recent N gauge news poll a lot of people were madly requesting new models of the Farish 37 and 47. Quite what they wanted adding to them is beyond me. The smell of diesel fumes?

 

I doubt having less detail and features would affect prices though, I think it’s more manufacturers adding features to help justify today’s high costs.

 

Less ‘extras’ would probably improve reliability and robustness though which I am all for. Models are too fragile and too complex for the quality control processes of most manufacturers in my opinion. If I pay £200 for a model I want it to work for more than 30 minutes no matter how detailed it is…

 

David 

[D9020 Nimbus]

As far as the current Farish 37 is concerned, for me it's the ride height being too high. I can see the tops of the wheels when it's on straight track, and I shouldn’t be able to see them.

 

The class 31 doesn't have this issue, and it may simply be a consequence of the compromises needed to produce a model that will go round relatively sharp curves.

 

For me, the OO models of the 1980s (Airfix/Mainline/Dapol, that is) were fine from a detail point of view but in the case of Airfix and Mainline, the running left a lot to be desired.

 

But the question is, would there be a worthwhile saving? The Hornby (ex-Airfix) GWR autocoach featured in TMC's sale recently: priced at about £25. The "regular price" is just under £50. At the regular price, I'd rather pay the extra to get the Bachmann model, although some consider it overpriced at £70.

 

One concern is that Bachmann considers some prototypes to no longer be viable as models: the Prestwin silo wagon was cancelled for that reason. If the detail race continues, what will they do if all prototypes are unviable?

[DenysW]

Have a look at the Atlas (Hillside NJ, USA) catalog. They do 3 ranges - cheap&child-resistant, intermediate, and detailed. It's an example of a company in a larger economy doing exactly what this thread is suggesting.

 

They do sell direct to the UK (very helpful via e-mail when their website won't accept UK-format Zip codes), but you should expect a minimum of ca. $60 postal charges, irrespective of order size.

 

I have no financial connection with them, but an emotional link from buying their models and track at my local shop when resident in New Jersey 1982-1993.

 

Particularly useful for odd-little-lengths of track. Sadly they no longer do steam traction.

[sncf231e]

Less detail is no problem as long as there is more color

Regards

Fred

[dave750t]

30 minutes ago, sncf231e said:

Less detail is no problem as long as there is more color

Regards

Fred

basic error. That tender was only used with the later, unstreamlined rebuilds.

[johnofwessex]

I suppose the question to which we dont have a clear answer as far as I can see is what would be the cost saving of a simpler model or from reusing old tooling?

[Phil Parker]

On 13/01/2023 at 15:51, TerraNovaTrains said:

Id accept less detailed models if the prices were significantly cheaper as well. Im not giving Hornby £84 for a 1990s (if not older) L&YR Pug (thats the same tooling as the ancient Airfix model), when I can buy the exact same model from S & J Models for £40!

 

You are comparing Hornby's RRP, which no one ever pays, with a second hand model. There are bargains out there, but if you want a specific livery, then you will have to search, and accept a model with no warranty. Caveat emptor.

[Phil Parker]

On 13/01/2023 at 16:10, bmthtrains - David said:

Less ‘extras’ would probably improve reliability and robustness though which I am all for. Models are too fragile and too complex for the quality control processes of most manufacturers in my opinion. If I pay £200 for a model I want it to work for more than 30 minutes no matter how detailed it is…

 

If you are breaking your models in 30 minutes, you are doing something wrong. I visited Pete Watermans' first cathedral layout during the last week, expecting to see a pile of dead locos - and there weren't any.

 

 

If locos can thrash around his massive layout for weeks on end, then modern RTR isn't as fragile as people like to think.

[Downer]

Some of us would accept less detailed models, some of us wouldn’t. 

[6990WitherslackHall]

Yeah, I'd accept less detailed models. 

 

I've got a few locomotives that don't have lamp irons and a Lima Class 121 that I run on my OO gauge layout. 

[Clan Mcadder]

On 13/01/2023 at 15:51, TerraNovaTrains said:

Id accept less detailed models if the prices were significantly cheaper as well. Im not giving Hornby £84 for a 1990s (if not older) L&YR Pug (thats the same tooling as the ancient Airfix model), when I can buy the exact same model from S & J Models for £40!

In the 1980s when first introduced by Dapol these had an rrp of £19.99 inflation does happen. And whilst I am too definitely of the party of less detailed and cheaper models aka I am very very fond of detailed lima etc , I do wish people would take into account of the value of money sometimes..  

[Dunsignalling]

 

As the OP was singing the praises of Lima, it's still around, with better motors and paint, in the Hornby Railroad range. Also, of course, it's not a million miles from what Hornby seems to want TT:120 to achieve. 😇

 

Whilst they attempted to move Railroad beyond mere recycling in the Design Clever era, Hornby hasn't introduced anything all-new since. The big question is whether Hornby (or anybody else) could expand the market segment and make enough to exceed any negative effect on their other sales.

 

Railroad may well be quite profitable for Hornby as a continuing way of making money out of obsolete tooling. After all, if the percentage return were drastically below that of main range models, Railroad would seem to be rather a waste of precious production capacity.

 

However, the maths stack Hornby's longevity is what makes Railroad possible and any new rival to it would have to be made using new tooling. Hornby could probably strangle it at birth by accepting a (temporary) reduction in their Railroad margins. 

 

Bachmann might have a sufficiently large back catalogue to do something similar but all their discontinued stuff has ancient mechanisms with known axle/wheel "issues", so purely reintroducing them at "bargain" prices (even if the old tooling were in usable condition) wouldn't seem prudent.

 

The brutal truth may be that hobbies in general are luxuries, and very few businesses have ever set out to attract the discretionary pounds of the skint (who don't have any) or the tight (who are reluctant to part with them), with even fewer making a decent living from doing so.

 

John

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Andy Hayter]

4 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

I suppose the question to which we dont have a clear answer as far as I can see is what would be the cost saving of a simpler model or from reusing old tooling?

 

Someone from Accurascale posted above that a £400 EMU set might go down to £350 at best - so if we take that as 12.5%, that is not a lot to be saved.

[MyRule1]

The 11th episode of the new series of Hornby: A Model World,now available on the UKTV app may provide Hornby 's view on this. SK said the initial run of the Rebuilt Merchant Navy was 5,000 and they unexpectedly sold 17,500. Volumes were also given for the Rocket. We have no idea of Hornby R&D tooling production cost or their required profit margin. The questions are would overall net profit for a cut down model satisfy their shareholders.

 

My answer to the OP is yes. I happily run a 1980's Black 5 and tender driven B17 and have no intention of, or budget to upgrade them. My red lines are handrails and too clunky valve gear/rods.

[sjp23480]

I am a fan of the Hornby Railroad range.  I wondered if a direct comparison of the RR Vs full fat version of the same model would be productive. The model is a maroon MK1 TSO in maroon, see the shots below. 

 

The RR ones were <£20 when I bought them, the full fat versions now seem to be >£30 a piece.

 

In summary, the only difference that my untrained eye can see is the extra transfers on the full fat version: on the windows, sole bars and ends.  Easily and cheaply addressed.  Oh, and fancier packaging.

 

The finish on both is excellent, although the lining on the RR is a little more subdued, which actually looks better to me.

 

At normal viewing distances they are almost impossible to tell apart.  

 

These days my philosophy is to ask if something is  "good enough", having abandoned the pursuit of perfection due to a lack of time!

Edited January 15, 2023 by sjp23480

[woodenhead]

38 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

 

So the saving between RR and Full Fat is in the plastic saved as the RR is significantly shorter than full fat  🤣

[sjp23480]

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So the saving between RR and Full Fat is in the plastic saved as the RR is significantly shorter than full fat  🤣

  @woodenhead  It's actually the TT:120 pre production prototype 🤔

Edited January 15, 2023 by sjp23480

[6990WitherslackHall]

57 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

I am a fan of the Hornby Railroad range.  I wondered if a direct comparison of the RR Vs full fat version of the same model would be productive. The model is a maroon MK1 TSO in maroon, see the shots below. 

 

The RR ones were <£20 when I bought them, the full fat versions now seem to be >£30 a piece.

 

In summary, the only difference that my untrained eye can see is the extra transfers on the full fat version: on the windows, sole bars and ends.  Easily and cheaply addressed.  Oh, and fancier packaging.

 

The finish on both is excellent, although the lining on the RR is a little more subdued, which actually looks better to me.

 

At normal viewing distances they are almost impossible to tell apart.

 

 

 

What's the length of each coach? 

[RJS1977]

TBH I'm not even too worried about dimensional accuracy (within reason).

 

If Hornby can save design and tooling costs by re-using a chassis that's a scale 6" too short, I have no problem with that.