Would we accept less detailed models

[Revolution Ben]

10 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

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.

 

Just for clarity I am with Revolution, not Accurascale. 

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[tomparryharry]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

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.

 

Yes, quite right. However, not everyone thinks like you. In this risk-averse world, would you risk your companies reputation on a lo-fat model?  especially when a direct competitor is fully capable of making a full-fat, all singing & dancing version? Quality talks, and despite what we think, we all want the best quality & fidelity.  Sure, we moan about prices, but really...?

 

An example, if you will. Would you, young Jonners, buy a Toad brakevan from Hornby, (which is blessed good, BTW). Or would you buy a  version from Bachmann, replete with 1970's tooling, for a few pennies less?  Both models have similar RRP. Your choice?

 

Sorry folks, a bit of a non-starter, IMHO. Hornby tried it on with the 42xx, and got well-bitten for their troubles.

[The Johnster]

I buy my Toads from Oxford and Hornby, but still have a Silurian Era Mainline bauxite liveried piped one, the oldest item on the layout, because I have a job on the layout for a piped van.  So why does the Bachmann Toad cost within shouting distance of the much better Hornby?  It is fundamentally the same as my piped ML, though with better wheels, buffers, and couplings, not a bad model in terms of scale or detail and hence a good basis for working up, but the Hornby does a lot of the working up for you, with better underframe detail, separate handrails and proper lamp brackets that you can put Modelu lamps on.  My ML has my own home made lamp brackets (Rexel no.13 staples cut to size and painted black), and it'll pass the three foot rule.

 

It is in fact a good example of what we are talking about, in that the footboards on the ML/Bachmann are much more robust.  Perhaps the ML/Bachmann suffers from the 'older tooling' higher costs issue, or perhaps it is a reflection of Hornby's apparent skimping on factory QC that I think is the reason that Bachmann items are usually more expensive than similar Hornbys other thing being equal, which of course they never are.

 

Older redacted toolings would appear to offer the possibility of cheaper models, but in fact don't always, or don't to the extent we expect them to, because if they date to a time before CAD design techniques they may be costly to use.  They may need more cleaning, take longer to set up for use, be less reliable in operation, use more electricity, and require human instead of automated operation, all of which are costly overheads that the company has to pass to us, the customers. 

 

Percecptions change over time and with progress as well.  I regard the current Oxford and Hornby Toads as excellent models, but they are still in a sense basic and benefit from detailing and working up.  You can provide interiors and paint them, paint the inside of the roofs white for better light distribution in the cabin, have open cabin doors, paint the sandboxes, all sorts of improvements.  Rapido are about to come to market with a properly hi-fi Toad, with a fully fitted interior and everything painted the proper colour, and it will be a wonderful model but about twice the price of the Hornby, which will make the Hornby look as basic and crude as the Hornby makes the Bachmann look now!

 

So, will I buy a Rapido Toad?  It'll be hard not to, but I've got enough Toads and it will make me unhappy with my Hornby Toads which will then have to be replaced with Rapidos or give me a lot of modelling to do in order to bring them up to Rapido standard  An aspect of the hobby for those of us who do not have the ability or time for scratchbuilding and rely perforce on RTR is a dragon to chase, of better quality and detail for diminishing returns in terms of overall value for money.  And as you say, we have proven on many occasions that we will pay for items we want despite complaining about the price of them however much that increases; most of those of us who say we are going to be priced out of the hobby are deluding ourselves and simultaneously pre-ordering the very models we are complaining about!

 

Of course, nobody pays RRP.  I have never, since returning to the hobby 7 years ago, paid RRP for a locomotive or coach, and very rarely for wagons.  Some are eBay or other sorts of 2h, but any bought new are always bought at a discount.  Discount prices and 2h are being pulled up by new RRPs of course.  I have just pre-ordered a Dapol Mainline & City coach to use in a workman's train from Rails, the most expensive item of rolling stock I have ever committed to buying, but still at 15% discount.  It's cheaper than some products with less detail, for example the Bachmann A38 auto trailer.  This Dapol model takes rolling stock standards 'ahead' in the sense that it will include overhead luggage racks in the compartments, which are not really visible unless you have a layout with embankments so that you can look upwards into your stock.  What next, dropping droplights, opening doors?  This doesn't matter to me, what does is that I want this coach and am prepared to pay what Rails are asking for it.  Would I buy it if it was less detailed or had more moulded detail but was cheaper?  Yes, probably, I want one, but nobody is making such toolings these days.

 

Presumably a more basic product could be produced profitably at a lower price than some of the redacted older toolings such as the Bachmann Toad, with new CAD tooling, but nobody seems keen to have a go at this, correctly (IMHO) reckoning that what we want is more detail, more disparate parts, and that we'll pay for it.  As this is pretty well established, one can see why manufacturers are unwilling to produce new toolings for basic Railroad-type products which would be a bit of a gamble.

Edited January 16, 2023 by The Johnster

[Andy Hayter]

10 hours ago, Revolution Ben said:

 

Just for clarity I am with Revolution, not Accurascale. 

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

My apologies Ben.

[tomparryharry]

I've read your post, but I would reiterate that making sub-par models, even with reduced prices, is not good business sense. As Mr. Parker of this parish has said, "go after the  2nd -hand stuff, such as Lima". 

[The Johnster]

I agree. We go for the best models we can afford and despite all the moaning about prices, we pay up, because it costs what it costs.  The only saving that a manufacturer would be able to make from a newly-tooled, as opposed to redacted-tooled, model with less disparate components would be in assembly costs.  
 

As an example, Hornby knock out the old Airfix A30 trailer at just under 40 beer vouchers (because this is the pricing point at which the thing is worth their while, not because they are profiteering, that’s what the old tooling costs to run), moulded door handles, lamp brackets, poor underframe detailing, no sprung buffers; it is what it is, a 70s model. It needs retooling to bring it up to modern standards, but if this were done at a basic level it would probably cost £20 more, review badly and nobody’d buy it.  Much more sense to do a full-fat job, charge £80-90 beer vouchers for it, and watch it fly off the shelves!

 

’Sub par’ models to my mind are those that are so poor and out-of-scale that there is no point in trying to work them up: I would include Hornby and Dapol’s generic chassis minerals and Bachmann’s cattle wagons in this category. I vote with my wallet.

 

 

[Legend]

2 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

I've read your post, but I would reiterate that making sub-par models, even with reduced prices, is not good business sense. As Mr. Parker of this parish has said, "go after the  2nd -hand stuff, such as Lima". 

 

But we are not looking at "sub-par" models , ones that are good enough ie without rotating fans, detail on the underside (no one can see it) opening doors , etched grills, instrument lights , cab lights even , electrical continuity couplings .

 

I think we have got to the stage where no one will produce a bulk standard emu/dmu (not express IETs)  because it simply costs too much with all these trimmings . You cant go to Lima for an Electrostar or Swindon 120, you cant go anywhere because no one is making them !

Edited January 16, 2023 by Legend

[Dunsignalling]

1 minute ago, Legend said:

 

But we are not looking at "sub-par" models , ones that are good enough ie without rotating fans, detail on the underside (no one can see it) opening doors , etched grills, instrument lights , cab lights even , electrical continuity couplings .

 

I think we have got to the stage where no one will produce a bulk standard emu/dmu (not express IETs)  because it simply costs too much with all these trimmings .

TBH, even things like Hornby's IET which are near enough "Design Clever" standard for detail from what I've seen, aren't cheap, and most of the people I know who model "Modern Image" seem to turn their noses up at anything without lights and sound.

 

I'm not convinced that merely cutting back on detail levels would reduce prices by anything like as much as some think. 

 

Question is, if a full-fat sound-fitted 4-car unit could be sold at (say) £500 and but a less detailed (but still with the lights etc) version couldn't be got out for less than £425 which way would most customers jump?

 

The only way I can see guaranteed popularity for a "basic" model is that if no state-of-the-art version exists to compete with it. I reckon most folk will find the money for stuff they really want. The main effect of escalating prices is more likely to be a tendency for us to buy one or two of a item where we might once have gone for three or four. 

 

John

[Andy Hayter]

Or indeed buy the things we really need rather then the items we would like to own.

 

For example, I bought the Hornby Rocket set (nice to have but no layout to sensibly run it) but I won't be buying extra coaches or wagon sets.  I really cannot justify paying those prices for something that will sit on a shelf for most of the time.

[Clive Mortimore]

54 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

TBH, even things like Hornby's IET which are near enough "Design Clever" standard for detail from what I've seen, aren't cheap, and most of the people I know who model "Modern Image" seem to turn their noses up at anything without lights and sound.

 

I'm not convinced that merely cutting back on detail levels would reduce prices by anything like as much as some think. 

 

Question is, if a full-fat sound-fitted 4-car unit could be sold at (say) £500 and but a less detailed (but still with the lights etc) version couldn't be got out for less than £425 which way would most customers jump?

 

The only way I can see guaranteed popularity for a "basic" model is that if no state-of-the-art version exists to compete with it. I reckon most folk will find the money for stuff they really want. The main effect of escalating prices is more likely to be a tendency for us to buy one or two of a item where we might once have gone for three or four. 

 

John

There are quite a few of us who find gimmicks not necessary on our model diesel locomotives or multiple units. 

[Legend]

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

There are quite a few of us who find gimmicks not necessary on our model diesel locomotives or multiple units. 

 

Wish I could double like this!  Spot on Clive (mind you if I could cut and shut like you I might have my class 126 by now !) . Much more important it looks like the unit and runs well .  Everything else should be optional 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Legend

[Halvarras]

52 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

There are quite a few of us who find gimmicks not necessary on our model diesel locomotives or multiple units. 

 

Especially if we model the 1960s/70s with no intention of running our layouts in the dark! I prefer to employ the older Bachmann Class 42 Warships without lights as changing the headcodes is far easier, plus the lighting is ludicrously bright anyway, and they run just as well as the 'lit' ones (and on DC quite a lot better than the later Class 43s with their odd gearing). As mentioned previously, cab lighting is inappropriate while running and on most models only draws attention to the lack of a crew.......and some manufacturers make correcting this difficult by gluing the cab interiors in place! It grates a bit to disconnect something you've paid for, but hey ho, the same applied to our cars - how many of us have vehicles with features we've rarely if ever used (e.g. manual control of an automatic transmission)?

 

We're all in this hobby to get what we want out of it - I want to 'paint a 3D picture' of the railway I fondly remember and I don't need every little detail to be represented (especially underneath!) to achieve this to my personal satisfaction. I'm happy to run the older versions of the.......er.....post-Lima centre-motored models because I can change their details to represent specific locomotives without breaking into the kind of sweat doing the same to a £200+ model bristling with delicate details on a perfect paint job would generate. I would rather have three older Bachmann Class 25s in different body styles and liveries at £50 each than a single Heljan model at £150, even if the former's cab roof arch is noticeably wrong. In fact I was pondering the other day how many locomotives I've paid more than £100 for over the years and I think I can count them on the fingers and thumbs of both hands (a pair of Kernow D600s being my most expensive purchases). I now have everything I'll ever need and at my time of life (I'll be turning 70 in April) I have no intention of upgrading, therefore I have not acquired any models from the hobby's new entrants. This is not to say I'm not impressed with what they are creating, I am - hugely - but I can't justify it. I don't feel guilty about this because I know they'll deservedly sell everything they make so me bowing out will leave more available for those who appreciate all the detail, bells and whistles! 

[melmoth]

5 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Or indeed buy the things we really need rather then the items we would like to own.

 

 

I'm not having a pop at you, but what exactly does anyone "really need" in a hobby where everything acquired (apart from possibly track and a power supply) is a discretionary purchase in the first place? Everything we buy is something we'd "like to own", it's really just a question of the excuses we make to ourselves in justifying a completely non-essential (i.e. discretionary) purchase - particularly when it's something that we might have to stretch to afford. A hobby is just a hobby - it's not a mortgage or rent or lighting or heating - and that might possibly become more apparent to more people soon. What manufacturers are possibly doing are putting their all eggs into the "I'll take six, so long as their accurate" part of the market, rather than the "I can afford one if it's less than £xx" part of the market.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

 

I'm not having a pop at you, but what exactly does anyone "really need" in a hobby where everything acquired (apart from possibly track and a power supply) is a discretionary purchase in the first place? Everything we buy is something we'd "like to own", it's really just a question of the excuses we make to ourselves in justifying a completely non-essential (i.e. discretionary) purchase - particularly when it's something that we might have to stretch to afford. A hobby is just a hobby - it's not a mortgage or rent or lighting or heating - and that might possibly become more apparent to more people soon. What manufacturers are possibly doing are putting their all eggs into the "I'll take six, so long as their accurate" part of the market, rather than the "I can afford one if it's less than £xx" part of the market.

 

I understand the point you are making and yes it is all discretionary expenditure.

 

I was trying to draw a distinction between models I might buy for purely emotional reasons - nice model, went on one 20 years ago, looks pretty,  etc.....

and

models that are "needed" (sorry cannot find a better word except perhaps required) to augment or help complete my layout projects.

 

I accept that some will buy more randomly than I do and even run their models in a more random fashion than I do, but I run my layouts to a defined period and geographic location.  

 

So for example I will buy a medium to large sized L&YR goods loco - if ever one is released or if I have time to build one of the kits available.  I will not buy a medium to large sized GWR locomotive - even though I remember seeing some on visits to my grandparents in the West Country (emotional link only).

[jjb1970]

When we start discussing prices it all gets a bit messy. Something to keep in mind is that when a business discusses their own costs, pricing model and what they need to proceed with products it may well be true for their business but may be meaningless for another business.

 

Different businesses have different overheads, different capabilities, some have better talent within their organization, what is considered an acceptable rate of return may differ, have different ambitions and countless other variables. Efficiency varies between companies, just because one company says it costs £X to develop a model doesn't mean it costs their rivals that much (if may cost their rivals more or less to do the same). There are very few truly fixed costs in business. To be blunt, not all companies are the same and some are better at what they do than others.

 

There has been a lot of inconsistency on detail. We get stories which say prices are high because of the high levels of detail, costs of all those separately applied parts etc, which is entirely logical. Then if it is suggested that some would happily accept less detail or applying parts themselves we are sometimes told 'well it wouldn't really alter the price'. I can believe either for a particular company, but it seems difficult for both cases to be true.

 

The other point I'd restate is to look beyond the British (and even beyond the European) bubble. In Germany Piko have been very clever developing a multi-tiered range to appeal to different segments of the hobby and have been eating a few lunches formerly more highly regarded companies thought were theirs. In the North American market Scaletrains has been very good at applying a multi-tiered approach using the same basic tooling. I've also mentioned Tomix already with their standard and prestige releases.

 

To circle back to my first point in this post, the fact that Piko, Scaletrains, Tomix and others have successfully implemented a different approach and appeal to different segments doesn't mean it would work for other companies or it would be right for all companies. Tomix are part of Tomytec, an operation which dwarves most model train companies. What it does say is there are different ways to operate and that companies can appeal to different segments, offer value oriented products which are very well recieved if done well. Both Scaletrains and Tomix offer customers the choice - 'want to save money and don't mind less detail or a pain in the rear end job fitting parts? There you go. Want the best and don't mind paying? There you go'.

 

So there are different ways of operating if companies want to think differently. Whether or not it works comes down to implementation. It's easy to dismiss ideas as bad, or to inflate ideas to genius level when in many cases what fails or impresses is execution of those ideas.

[dave55uk]

11 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

There are quite a few of us who find gimmicks not necessary on our model diesel locomotives or multiple units. 

Do we even need sprung buffers on any stock? In my 60+ years of 'playing trains', I cannot recall any buffers touching.

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, dave55uk said:

Do we even need sprung buffers on any stock? In my 60+ years of 'playing trains', I cannot recall any buffers touching.

Only if you use screw/instanter/3-link couplings, and even then the springing on most r-t-r models is way too stiff.

 

Complete waste of time, effort and money with almost all automatic couplings.  

 

The only time I find them of any use at all is when fitted to Pullman-gangwayed coaches, on which it makes retracting them (where required) very straightforward. 😃

 

John

Edited January 17, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Colin_McLeod]

I consider a hobby as "needed" once the essentials of health, shelter, food, clothes, transport and warmth are sorted.

 

If the hobby is "needed" then so are the items that are needed for the hobby.  The dividing line between "needed hobby purchases" and "other hobby purchases" is vague. Anything else and it would no longer be a hobby.

 

[jjb1970]

People need a certain calorific intake, fresh water, shelter, clothes and access to sanitary facilities. And for good health, that calorific intake should consist of a balanced diet. Hobbies are discretionary spending. We want model trains, we don't need them.

[jjb1970]

The need thing is something that does make me wonder about many hobbyists. I've been in model railway clubs with members who were living in squalor, walking around in rags, had....ahem....hygiene issues, and I were suspect suffering malnutrition because of poor dietary choices yet they were spending ££££££££££££££s on models and going off on trips to trainspot, go bashing, on railtours etc.

 

I've had friends who worked in or owned model shops (and in fairness hi-fi shops) who reckoned that sort of description fitted some of their best customers. 

 

Now I know this is really rather arrogant and judgemental on my part, but I think if people go down a rabbit hole of defining themselves by a hobby and losing all perspective it is unhealthy. I tried to gently suggest that their problems weren't so much a lack of money (two of them had a rather bitter attitude to the world and considered themselves hard done by) but how they spent what money they had given that they were spending so much on models.

[melmoth]

As a rule of thumb, I think you can say that if someone is spending more than they can afford (definitions may vary here) on their hobby, then they don't have a hobby, they have a problem.

[Andy Hayter]

Far too many are focusing on one (of several) definitions of need.

 

From Cambridge University:

to have to have something, or to want something very much:

the state of having to have something that you do not have, especially something that you must have so that you can have a satisfactory life:

the things that a person must have in order to have a satisfactory life:

in need - not having enough money or food:

the state of being necessary:

 

etc.

 

Note they list the "essential" elements of need as a definition after those where we might chose to prefer to use want.

 

[Halvarras]

15 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I understand the point you are making and yes it is all discretionary expenditure.

 

I was trying to draw a distinction between models I might buy for purely emotional reasons - nice model, went on one 20 years ago, looks pretty,  etc.....

and

models that are "needed" (sorry cannot find a better word except perhaps required) to augment or help complete my layout projects.

 

I accept that some will buy more randomly than I do and even run their models in a more random fashion than I do, but I run my layouts to a defined period and geographic location.  

 

So for example I will buy a medium to large sized L&YR goods loco - if ever one is released or if I have time to build one of the kits available.  I will not buy a medium to large sized GWR locomotive - even though I remember seeing some on visits to my grandparents in the West Country (emotional link only).

 

Pretty much where I'm at - modelling specific location and period (or periods in my case) creates a greater 'need' for models to complete the scene but the modelling budget becomes targeted on those models, which keeps a lid on expenditure.

 

That's the theory anyway........I admit to having become quite good at justifying purchases which stretch the boundaries some way into 'what if.....?' territory - for example, an Adams Radial tank in Cornwall - not as far-fetched as it sounds as Wadebridge had a couple in the 1920s for services to Bodmin and my invented excuse is the Ivatt 2MTs pushed them off the Lyme Regis branch earlier than they did in reality so they (well, at least one) returned to Wadebridge to support the Adams 02s in their final years (besides, it's amusing to have 30584 and 30585 side-by-side and completely different!) But I didn't buy a Hornby T9, much as I like the look of it, because they were not used on the Bodmin line, and most of my relatively small steam fleet are BR(WR).

[D9020 Nimbus]

Piko do have three grades — Expert, the fully detailed expensive models; Classic, models from old tooling, and Hobby, new(ish) less detailed models. Among the new releases for 2023, Expert dominates, and there is very little for the Hobby range.

[The Johnster]

I am an unreformed DC Luddite and likely to remain so until my lottery win, so much of the 'bells and whistles' debate is not relevant to me.  I do approve in principle however of gadgetry that assists one's disbelief suspension, and in this I would include firebox glow (didn't like it on my Baccy 94xx because it was too red, so I disconnected it, but I'd have left it had it been more orange) and rotating fans; if you could see it on the prototype, you should be able to see it on the model.  I'd like moving reversing rods and cut-off as well; the movement being part of the ritual of starting and a visual indication of how the engine was being worked.  Working windscreen wipers would convey the impression of wet weather.

 

Some of the sounds IMHO work against disbelief suspension, or are restrictive of it.  Steam sounds, some of which are little more than bursts of white noise, are not ever going to be capable of reproducing the infinite range of noises steam engines make in different circumstanes (this would need some sort of feedback control of the chip dependant on the amperage load on the motor, and even then may not represent how the loco would sound in a particular location; the tech's not there yet), and where railwaymens' voices are brought into play, one has accents to consider.  For example, Dapol's all-singing all-dancing rocket ship GW water tower had sound fx of the fireman telling the driver to shut the valve, in a West Country accent.  I suppose this is ok if you are happy with a generic West Country accent, but it would be unsuitable on my South Wales Valleys layout, or for one set nearer London, or for one set on the Cambrian, or the West Midlands, or Cornwal; all different sounds altogether and part of the general scene one is trying to create. 

 

LIghts are fine, but far too many of them feature incorrect tail lamp settings for some periods.  Locomotives used a single tail lamp during the green and banger blue livery periods, not the twin lamps one always sees on RTR models (though these are fine for current practice), and they are extinguished when the loco is coupled to a train.  DMUs used single oil tail lamps in these periods; in fact, nothing used twin tail lamps until the introduction of HSTs.  Southern Region of course used their red blinds on locos and multiple units, but oil tail lamps otherwise.  Battery lamps started to appear in the mid 70s, and flashing battery lamps later, after the demise of banger blue.   And the constant directional switching of lamps on shunting locomotives is unrealistic and distracting.  Cab lights will normally be switched off while the loco is moving, but back cab lights can be on when a guard is riding in the cab and doing his paperwork; the DCC needs to cater for this.

 

The pricing points of current full-fat locos should allow some of my suggested improvements to be incorporated in models without much increase, and no doubt some will be over time.  Done properly, they can improve disbelief suspension and the sense that one is looking at a real scene, but all too often they are ill-thought out, the product of 'showing off what we can do, look at these lights which are in the wrong place and far too bright anyway, LOOK!!!', detracting rather than enhancing this effect.

 

I'm happy to pay for effects that are effective, despite being a poor old pensioner on a fixed and limited income, but much of what is on offer with DCC does not float my boat.  I'll reconsider when I win the lotto, which I plan to do this Saturday, but until then I'm happy with things as they are.  No, I don't want cheaper models if they are less detailed and specced, and certainly not if they are not to scale, thank you all the same.