Would we accept less detailed models

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

s the OP was singing the praises of Lima, it's still around, with better motors and paint, in the Hornby Railroad range.

 

Plenty of Lima on th second-hand market too. Every bit as good/bad as it was when new, and since much of it has been superseeded, the prices are lower then modern models.

 

If you are happier with less detailed models, there are plenty out there. Trouble is, people want brand new less detailed models. As long as they have DCC provision. And lights. And fine valve gear. And a pack of detail items to attach... etc. etc.

 

If you simple want stuff that runs, then I interviewed the President of the Hornby Railway Collectors Association for BRM and couple of months ago, who made the point that any of their events sees mountains of stupidly cheap (6 late coaches for £24 anyone?), 2-rail models that will run well and can be detailed and maintained if you want. It's sitting there waiting for you. Mint boxed still commands a premium, but even that's a lot less then it did. Stuff without boxes goes for very little money.

[Clive Mortimore]

At Warley this year I was having a chat with Fran of Accurascale and I jokingly said that they were wasting their time in doing all the wonderful detail on the chassis of their Sphyon as I don't build layouts where the stock falls off and rolls over. Fran agreed but simply said unfortunately it is what customers expect. Are we our own worst enemy?  

[Dunsignalling]

4 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Plenty of Lima on th second-hand market too. Every bit as good/bad as it was when new, and since much of it has been superseeded, the prices are lower then modern models.

 

If you are happier with less detailed models, there are plenty out there. Trouble is, people want brand new less detailed models. As long as they have DCC provision. And lights. And fine valve gear. And a pack of detail items to attach... etc. etc.

 

If you simple want stuff that runs, then I interviewed the President of the Hornby Railway Collectors Association for BRM and couple of months ago, who made the point that any of their events sees mountains of stupidly cheap (6 late coaches for £24 anyone?), 2-rail models that will run well and can be detailed and maintained if you want. It's sitting there waiting for you. Mint boxed still commands a premium, but even that's a lot less then it did. Stuff without boxes goes for very little money.

 

So basically, a marginal decrease in detail and a hefty reduction in price but with all the electronic bells, whistles and lights that come with the full-fat models included....😆

 

 

 

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, Clive Mortimore said:

At Warley this year I was having a chat with Fran of Accurascale and I jokingly said that they were wasting their time in doing all the wonderful detail on the chassis of their Sphyon as I don't build layouts where the stock falls off and rolls over. Fran agreed but simply said unfortunately it is what customers expect. Are we our own worst enemy?  

 

Rapido make sure all the bolt heads are orientated slightly differently, because there are people who check and moan if they aren't.

[sjp23480]

27 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

What's the length of each coach? 

@6990WitherslackHallThey are both 258mm long. Why?

[tomparryharry]

I'd suggest a word of caution, if I may. Example. A model by a manufacturer is listed as Cat A, B & C.  Cat C is the absolute bare bones.  Modeller buys Cat C, and makes a start on the model, and the modeller really bu66ers it up.  Modeller promptly boxes it up, and returns to the manufacturer as not working. Who carries the liability?

 

I think Dapol had a similar problem with the GWR railcar. People were buying the model, having problems with DCC & sound, and the returns were extensive. It's bad for morale, expense, and reputation. For fickle customers such as  us, it's not really a viable proposition. 

[Mike_Walker]

12 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

At Warley this year I was having a chat with Fran of Accurascale and I jokingly said that they were wasting their time in doing all the wonderful detail on the chassis of their Sphyon as I don't build layouts where the stock falls off and rolls over. Fran agreed but simply said unfortunately it is what customers expect. Are we our own worst enemy?  

In a word: Yes.

[sjp23480]

So I thought, let's do a Lima/Bachmann comparison. BR MK1 GUV van.  The Lima moulding is at least 40 years old, I believe Hornby still use it?  I am not sure when Bachmann introduced theirs but mine is in their old packaging. 

 

Both models are as bought, although I have replaced the Lima wheels.  Again there is not much between them when viewed at normal distances. The Bachmann underframe and bogies are finer, but mostly invisible, the Lima couplings aren't great.

 

Bachmann have some nicer decals applied and have picked out some details (brake handwheels) but again not much needed to bring the Lima one up to modern standards. 

 

There is not much between the livery application, with the Bachmann maroon looking a little lighter when compared to Lima. 

 

But I would be happy running them side by side in a rake.

 

P s.  Before anyone asks, they are the same length at 228mm or scale 57' 🙂

Edited January 15, 2023 by sjp23480

[woodenhead]

When Farish replaced the final version of the original style of Mk1 vehicles for the Blue Riband version, I was running both types side by side.  The only real problem with the older variants was the bigger gap between the coach ends, even the late original Mk2 aircons were decent models and would look fine on a layout today.

[JohnR]

I think the issue is the price point of these less detailed models. Looking at the Railroad range, with their Lima era tooling, commanding prices of £100 for a diesel loco, and more for a 101 DMU, feels too high to me, especially given that the tooling has been paid for many years ago. 

 

But you'd have to expect a new tooled model, despite being less detailed would have cost more than a Railroad 47, in order to cover the cost of that tooling.  

[Dunsignalling]

50 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

So I thought, let's do a Lima/Bachmann comparison. BR MK1 GUV van.  The Lima moulding is at least 40 years old, I believe Hornby still use it?  I am not sure when Bachmann introduced theirs but mine is in their old packaging. 

 

Both models are as bought, although I have replaced the Lima wheels.  Again there is not much between them when viewed at normal distances. The Bachmann underframe and bogies are finer, but mostly invisible, the Lima couplings aren't great.

 

Bachmann have some nicer decals applied and have picked out some details (brake handwheels) but again not much needed to bring the Lima one up to modern standards. 

 

There is not much between the livery application, with the Bachmann maroon looking a little lighter when compared to Lima. 

 

But I would be happy running them side by side in a rake.

 

P s.  Before anyone asks, they are the same length at 228mm or scale 57' 🙂

The Lima GUV is very much of its time but was one of their better efforts. The biggest (and most obvious) differences between it and the newer Bachmann model are the glazing and bogies.

 

Although I have a gaggle of the Bachmann models, I'm still running a single Lima example. It has been worked over, however, (ventilators, glazing, that horrible infilled brake link opened up, etc.) and sits on Mainline bogies with Jackson/Romford wheels. That's how long ago I did it!

 

I've kept it because it seems to sit more comfortably with my first-generation Bachmann Bulleids than the newer incarnation. My remaining got-at Replica Mk.1 BCK also seems to blend-in with them better than do its Bachmann counterparts.

 

John

Edited January 15, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[mcowgill]

3 hours ago, Clan Mcadder said:

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..  

 

Intoduced in 1984, £20 adjusted by RPI inflation is now £84

Edited January 15, 2023 by mcowgill

[johnofwessex]

As far as coaches go the real difference for me is decent flush glazing, any coach that has is fine imho

 

Just bought a Dapol 2P for £35 (or was it £25)

 

Ran very well on the club test track and not many bits to break when handling it

[Huw Griffiths]

47 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

If you are happier with less detailed models, there are plenty out there. Trouble is, people want brand new less detailed models. As long as they have DCC provision. And lights. And fine valve gear. And a pack of detail items to attach... etc. etc.

 

38 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

So basically, a marginal decrease in detail and a hefty reduction in price but with all the electronic bells, whistles and lights that come with the full-fat models included....😆

 

Not necessarily.

 

As I've got an electronics background (and I'm a member of MERG), I'd be more than happy to add any "sound and light show" stuff myself.

 

As for the serviceable basic secondhand, finding what you want seems to be a bit of a lottery - and it probably always will be.

 

 

I sometimes wonder how many markets RailRoad (and similar) caters for:

• "Train set" - people who want something tough, "cheap & cheerful" and, above all, affordable "for younger relatives" to run on an oval of track. Bright colours probably help - prototype fidelity might not even be an afterthought.
   
• "Cut & shut brigade" - people like me are more interested in how easy it would be to modify / adapt various offerings into what we really want (but will probably never see RTR at prices we can afford). Some of us would probably prefer unpainted - possibly even not glued together, as this would make dismantling so much easier.

Both of these groups are likely to be "price sensitive". Chances are that many of us in the second group quietly hope there'll be enough people in the first group for our "donor models" to be affordable. Manufacturers willing to cater for these markets would also help.

 

I'm not convinced that lots of us were opposed to the concept of "design clever". Certainly for me, the real issue was the pricing (which might have been related to production quantities) - and a perception of "stripped out" products at premium prices.

 

 

[JohnR]

13 minutes ago, mcowgill said:

 

Intoduced in 1984, £20 adjusted by RPI inflation is now £84

 

According to the Bank of England inflation calculator, £20 in 1984 is now £59.75

[Dunsignalling]

2 minutes ago, Huw Griffiths said:

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

As I've got an electronics background (and I'm a member of MERG), I'd be more than happy to add any "sound and light show" stuff myself.

 

As for the serviceable basic secondhand, finding what you want seems to be a bit of a lottery - and it probably always will be.

 

 

I sometimes wonder how many markets RailRoad (and similar) caters for:

• "Train set" - people who want something tough, "cheap & cheerful" and, above all, affordable "for younger relatives" to run on an oval of track. Bright colours probably help - prototype fidelity might not even be an afterthought.
   
• "Cut & shut brigade" - people like me are more interested in how easy it would be to modify / adapt various offerings into what we really want (but will probably never see RTR at prices we can afford). Some of us would probably prefer unpainted - possibly even not glued together, as this would make dismantling so much easier.

Both of these groups are likely to be "price sensitive". Chances are that many of us in the second group quietly hope there'll be enough people in the first group for our "donor models" to be affordable. Manufacturers willing to cater for these markets would also help.

 

I'm not convinced that lots of us were opposed to the concept of "design clever". Certainly for me, the real issue was the pricing (which might have been related to production quantities) - and a perception of "stripped out" products at premium prices.

 

 

I'm not averse to a bit of "hacking" to produce something not available ready made, but have always balked at carving up anything brand new (even if not expensive).

 

I'm still in the process of building up a ludicrously numerous fleet of Bulleid Light Pacifics, many of which came second-hand, some from swap-meets where I could see what I was getting, with several more "bought blind" on-line.

 

I've only fallen for one that was irretrievable (albeit fairly advertised) which became a spares donor and has "saved" at least two more "marginal" examples and provided the basis for a tender conversion currently underway. Ultimately, very little of it will go to waste! 

 

John

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Rapido make sure all the bolt heads are orientated slightly differently, because there are people who check and moan if they aren't.

When I was an apprentice any item that was held together with a bolt and nut had to have the bolt heads all lined up, with one of the flats parallel with the edge. Standards are not as they were. 😕

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

If you are happier with less detailed models, there are plenty out there. Trouble is, people want brand new less detailed models. As long as they have DCC provision. And lights. And fine valve gear. And a pack of detail items to attach... etc. etc.

As a DC Luditte can I have a less detailed model with no gizmos please?

 

I am sure there is a market for us who are not bothered with fine detail bits to break off as we get the model out the box. I am also sure the marketing people of the various companies have looked into this as a possibility and if they could see it was profitable then less detailed models would be in the shops. It seems the market for less detailed models might not be big enough.

[Robin Brasher]

I have never regretted paying for a well detailed model whereas I have regretted the short sighted approach of saving money for a less detailed model.

 

One example is the Hornby Tornado in LNER apple green livery where there were two versions in the Railroad range. 

 

Tornado visited the Swanage Railway that I am modelling so I bought the cheaper version with simplified lining which looks terrible every time I see it. When I took it to the model railway club someone asked me why I had bought it when I could have bought a fully lined example for a few extra pounds. Now I am stuck with a poorly finished model that I cannot get rid of and would probably have to pay a lot more to buy the upmarket version.

 

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

I think the issue is the price point of these less detailed models. Looking at the Railroad range, with their Lima era tooling, commanding prices of £100 for a diesel loco, and more for a 101 DMU, feels too high to me, especially given that the tooling has been paid for many years ago. 

 

But you'd have to expect a new tooled model, despite being less detailed would have cost more than a Railroad 47, in order to cover the cost of that tooling.  

But we need to understand that the RRP of a model has to include a contribution towards the overall running and revenue of a company.

 

Not all models cost the same to produce and not all will produce the same volume of contribution towards a company's target revenue.  So a Railroad model may have paid back it's tooling, but it's contribution to overall revenue may be elevated to allow more costly newly tooled models to be a little bit cheaper by making less contribution towards revenue targets.

 

Supermarkets don't apply one value of profit over the cost of each any every item they sell, they vary them, some items are even sold at a loss because it brings people in store and then they will likely pick up other items upon which they do make profit.  It is well known that milk was sold at a losss to bring in custom.

 

So taking Hornby, dropping the prices of Railroad models might be possible, but then other items will have to rise in price to replace the lost revenue and that might tip some expensive items over a price point where people don't buy them and then Hornby loses more revenue.  It's a balancing game, you need to find the most appropriate price points to achieve your target revenue whilst not pricing yourself out of the market.

[woodenhead]

16 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

As a DC Luditte can I have a less detailed model with no gizmos please?

 

I am sure there is a market for us who are not bothered with fine detail bits to break off as we get the model out the box. I am also sure the marketing people of the various companies have looked into this as a possibility and if they could see it was profitable then less detailed models would be in the shops. It seems the market for less detailed models might not be big enough.

Problem is that you'd need two production lines if you had models that had hi-fi and lo-fi versions, and some retooling on the electronics side for DC only.

 

Perhaps though the answer lies in the BMW approach - put it all in, but lock it out via key so the purchaser can get the base model without the gizmos and then pay a subscription or a fee to unlock the features they want.   Want lights, that's £5, want DCC that's £5, want a DCC controlled pantograph thats £15, want basic sound £5, want bowel loosening Deltic sound £15.

[Ravenser]

The standard we are looking for is :

 

- accurate (dimensionally, and the things in the right places )

- runs well

- good factory finish.

 

In the case of coaches, flush-glazing is essential

 

The first means that Lima's "artist's impressions"  miss the mark , and "black boxes" on the underframe are a serious issue.

 

The second point has been achieved by virtually everything tooled up since 1999 (and a few things tooled earlier) . It was a big issue before 2000.  The ex Lima models have been kept going because they have been given 21st century mechanisms that run nicely, DCC Ready, with plentiful pickup and decent wheels. (I'm aware the motor bogies used lack guts and they will be struggling to shift much beyond 4 cars. But that is entirely adequete for 1 , 2, 3 and even 4 car multiple units. The 4 car Javelins ran fine)

 

The third point is pretty well standard now on nearly everything

 

Where I have a real issue is when the same subject is being retooled again and again. 

 

In principle, everything newly tooled from 1999 onward should meet all these standards , unless someone seriously cocked up. There are a small number of examples of that

 

In practice we have had 6 different OO Class 37s developed and tooled in 20 years, and 5 different OO Class 47s developed and tooled in 25 years . About 2 of those models had significant "issues"  and all ran very nicely. We've now seen 3 versions of the Rats, where similar comments apply

 

Meanwhile the Bachmann 101 was acknowledged to have its issues but slumbers unquestioned . The Bachmann BR cattle wagon passes unchallenged despite being the wrong length . A range of popular strongly-selling post-privatisation DMUs with no obvious shape or performance issues were withdrawn "for complete retooling" in order to add DCC sockets. One has finally reappeared after a decade , at about 3x the price. The others (Turbostar, 165, Voyagers) are still missing in action

 

Realtrack are about the only "new boys" who have tooled up new multiple units, as some are calling for , and those are only 2 car (Nor are they that cheap) . They are either new subjects or replace models that were tooled to 20th century compromised standards

 

RevolutionBen notes

Quote

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. 

 

Given that in most cases we already have "good enough" models available in OO , I really question whether all the current investment is being well-spent. We don't yet know how successful all these projects will be commercially but the money sunk into them will have to be recovered somehow from the customer, at a time when funds are being squeezed and costs in China have risen steeply and will continue to do so

 

And here's the nub (RevolutionBen again):

Quote

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.

 

 

This is shooting ourselves in the foot, possibly with both barrels . Tooling suits have limited life , because people online keep baying for everything to be duplicated and replaced and therefore retooled long long before the tooling actually wears out. Tools with 30-50 year lives are being used for a decade or so. Here is a pile of cost that is being loaded onto our models on questionable grounds

 

Quote

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.

 

Unfortunately some people are trying to make OO models more expensive, by demanding  everything (or at least all 20th century locomotives) be retooled to higher and higher standards of detail every decade. I've even seen postings calling for someone to tool up a new TTA to challenge the new Hornby TTA , which itself challenges the Bachmann high spec TTA of a decade ago (Hint - a TTA chemical tanker might be a better idea if someone really feels obliged to develop yet another model..  Bring something extra to the table) 

 

We can do without fripperies like working fans , opening doors , firebox glow, and the rest, whicjh only add cost. And I personally doubt the justification for full-blown son et luminere spectacular capabilities on anything built before 1985 

 

But it is the clamour for endless retooling of existing accurate models that run well, for a marginal gain,  which is going to pile on the costs in the future

[phil-b259]

On 13/01/2023 at 10:51, APOLLO said:

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

 

A nice model.

 

Brit15

 

No - that was the follow on 2HAL unit.

 

But agreed it was a nice model and still had a decent amount of separately fitted detail.

 

IIRC the main differences between the 2BIL and the 'design clever' 2HAL were things like roof vents and door grab rails on the later being moulded.

[teeinox]

I wonder if the answer to this question depends on what sort of modeller one is?  I suppose I am an inveterate tinkerer.  I always feel a sense of dissatisfaction with a model, bought new, when there is absolutely nothing I can do/change/improve about it. It isn’t MINE, and I don’t get a thrill from simply buying an expensive, perfect artifact.

 

But that isn’t an argument against detail.  If I compare my super-detailed Hornby Stanier coaches against the Airfix/Dapol incarnations of yesteryear, the Hornby ones are the ones to have, game, set and match.  But I bought them second-hand because I have a price ceiling.  And fixing problems on them was part of the pleasure.

 

I also bought the Hornby Hawksworths, new but at a discount.  Again, beautiful coaches.  But I also bought the Mainline/Replica Railways/Bachmann Collett “sunshine” coaches to run with them.  Fundamentally they are a good model, reasonably near correct dimensions and decently finished.  I had a lot of fun bringing them up to an acceptable standard.  They will never be as good as the Hawksworths, but in my eyes they are good enough.

 

So I am not sure that there is a clear answer to the question Darrel posed.  What I am sure about is that for me there is price resistance.  I have a ceiling on what I am prepared to pay, and I am happy to look for bargains or wait for the second-hand market before I buy.  And I am happy to fix the super-details that may have dropped off in the course of time!

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

I'd suggest a word of caution, if I may. Example. A model by a manufacturer is listed as Cat A, B & C.  Cat C is the absolute bare bones.  Modeller buys Cat C, and makes a start on the model, and the modeller really bu66ers it up.  Modeller promptly boxes it up, and returns to the manufacturer as not working. Who carries the liability?

 

I think Dapol had a similar problem with the GWR railcar. People were buying the model, having problems with DCC & sound, and the returns were extensive. It's bad for morale, expense, and reputation. For fickle customers such as  us, it's not really a viable proposition. 

 

I reckon this is much the same making a bo**ocks of a kit, clearly the responsibility is that of the modeller, and it would not be difficult for the manufacturer in your examplee to see that the problem lies in faulty fixing of the retrofit parts and not in their manufacturing process.  As an inveterate 'improver' of RTR models, I'm aware that once I've invalidated the warranty I'm on my own.

 

7 hours ago, JohnR said:

I think the issue is the price point of these less detailed models. Looking at the Railroad range, with their Lima era tooling, commanding prices of £100 for a diesel loco, and more for a 101 DMU, feels too high to me, especially given that the tooling has been paid for many years ago. 

 

But you'd have to expect a new tooled model, despite being less detailed would have cost more than a Railroad 47, in order to cover the cost of that tooling.  

 

I feel your pain, JohnR, you'd think that models produced from redacted tooling would be all profit bar the relatively low cost of materials.  We are told that the biggest single cost in producing is assembly, and hence modern models with a large number of disparate parts are bound to cost more and locos with single-piece bodyshells and moulded detail should cost less, which they do, but only up to a point.  What messes up this idea is that older toolings, particularly those dating from before the advent of CAD design, are sometimes more expensive to use than modern ones; they take longer, need more cleaning and setting up between uses, need to be manually operated, and are more wasteful of power and materials. 

 

This is not to say that a degree of profiteering is not taking place, and that some models may be priced excessively high because the market will bear it, after all this is normal business practice and until somebody comes up with something that replaces capitalism as a means of production (capitalism is the best method so far devised for creating wealth, and the worst method so far devised for fairly and equably distributing it), don't look at me, I'm only a failed 6th form economist, and taking into account that this is a hobby and not a basic life essential, it's a first world problem and a case of 'suck it up, Buttercup'!