Since you've been in the hobby, what decades/years saw the biggest jump forward in terms of loco/rolling stock detail and are we reaching the 'peak' of what can be detailied/customised?

[Talltim]

17 hours ago, melmerby said:

4D sound from TrainController.

It uses 4 speakers at the corners of the layout for positional sound.

I see no real reason why quadraphonic headphones couldn't be used, (as long as you sit in the same place all the time!)

Can’t see that working with a layout such as this one from a recent Freemo meet

Edit: although a nice big speaker stack in each corner could get the good bass rumble

Edited April 5, 2023 by Talltim

[Jol Wilkinson]

Etched kits replacing white metal ones.

[Halvarras]

Another vote for the arrival of Mainline and Airfix in the late 1970s. Up until then I hadn't paid much attention to wagons, they were adequate but generally not impressive, however Airfix managed to turn the humble 5-plank open wagon into a thing of beauty, particularly IMO the BR grey version with its top edge rivetting, door bangers, slender buffers, brake shoes in line with the wheels, matt paint finish and accurate number font. It looked so right and made Mainline's take on it appear deficient in comparison (nice try with the woodgrain effect but it looked overscale) and they later retooled their 10' chassis with in-line brake shoes in response. Airfix's choice of a Fleischmann-esque coupling design was brave and a statement of intent - it was a pity that they had to capitulate and switch to a conventional design which was larger than it really needed to be. I was so impressed by the underframe I used it under many Mainline, Hornby Dublo and (unpainted £1) Wrenn bodies and standardised on the small coupling too (I removed the hook from one end which allowed the coupling to be fixed rigidly to non-Airfix underframes and use of a magnetic shunter's pole for uncoupling - except on very early products on which I discovered the hooks were made of brass!)

 

As we now know it wasn't all rosy - the revolutionary decoration was somewhat undermined by the imperfect locomotive drive systems - my smart green Mainline Class 03 had a wheelset fall apart before I got to use it, the Warship's split drive gear issues are legendary, as are the melting plunger pick-up springs in the Airfix 14xx, and how they managed to make the 5-pole motor in the Class 31 sound like a bag of nails in a washing machine is a mystery. But a very encouraging direction of travel had been established.

 

I would also praise Lima's tooling abilities, especially during the 1980s - although not always perfect in terms of shape (e.g. Class 37/40 windscreens) the grille work showed a level of finesse which made that displayed by Bachmann's first Class 25 releases look clumsy by comparison (although the same could be said for Hornby's Class 25 too, which is why many still rate its bodyshell over Bachmann's).

 

I remember seeing the EPs for the first Bachmann Class 25 and Class 08, with its multitude of separately-fitted handrails and other detail parts, in a magazine around the turn of the millennium and thinking that things were about to change for the better - the growing criticism of cheap motors had been heard by one manufacturer at least.........

[The Johnster]

In my view, the game changing moments were 1) the development of Hornby Dublo in 1938, 2) Rovex's 1949 introduction of 2-rail RTR, 3) the 'Airfix/Mainline' scale/detail/finish revolution, and 4) the adoption of can motor worm/idler cog drive.  These are IMHO the 'four pillars' of current RTR modelling, and this being so, I am led to a comment which is not intended to be deliberately provocative, I simply mean it as an observation.

 

The first three of these 'pillars' are a more or less linear advance in scale, detail, and finish and are to be rationally expected as better design technology, materials, and production equipment became available.  The reason a Heljan Hymek is better than a Triang Hornby Hymek is not that Heljan did more research or took more care over detail, it is that a Hymek to the Heljan standard could not have been produced at a sellable retail price in Triang Hornby days, but it can nowadays.

 

Pillar number 3, the Airfix/Mainline revolution which laid the foundation for our current RTR models, also delivered a pretty dismal standard of performance, especially in regard to controllable slow running and smooth stops or starts.  I have discussed my view of the reason for this.  But I think it is fair to observe that the RTR manufacturers of those days had what appeared to be a pretty low opinion of whether or not we'd be much bothered by this, and they may well have had a point.  It was my view that at that time scale speed running was a low priority in general and the standard of driving at exhibitions was, in my view, abysmal.  If 'serious' modellers were happy with ridiculously fast running, rough shunting, brick wall stops, and stabbed rat starts, and The Johnster's complaining about it was something of a wilderness crying in a voice, how could anyone expect decent running from RTR models and why should RTR manufacturers have given a tinker's left wotsit about it anyway?

 

Then the cost of producing models in the UK became prohibitive at roughly the turn of the century, and everybody decamped to China.  This was A Good Thing, as we were then treated to a couple of decades of increasingly good models at very low prices, and although that ship has now well and truly sailed, we have been left with a still-expanding range of superbly detailed scale RTR models at what I would contend are still very reasonable prices all things considered in an increasingly difficult economic world.  

 

But another boon from the Chinese production model is the more or less universal use of pillar no.4, the cheap but miraculously high quality can motor coupled with worm and idler cog drive. This gives enough power for most of us, good slow running becaue reasonable final drive gear ratios can be easily achieved, smooth starting and stopping, and very quiet power transmission.  I would question how much of this has been asked for by our RTR companies, and how much it is a result of Chinese producers using these motors and drives because that is what they have available.  I suspect that the improvement in performance and running quality from the established companies, those with red or blue boxes, is not the result of their thinking that we are becoming more demanding in this regard. 

 

(To illustrate the point, I recently browsed a Bachmann 56xx on eBay that had a video to look at.  This consisted of the loco being run backwards and forwards at top speed on a straight section of track, which I suppose the seller would say showed that it ran well in both directions.  I browsed and moved on; not buying off anyone who treats a model in such a cavalier fashion, thank you very much).

 

The new kids on the block realise that they have to at least match and preferably better the performance of the established players, and I certainly think that driving standards at exhibitions are in general much better than they were twenty, thirty, or forty years ago, but one still sometimes sees brickwall stops and stabbed rat starts...  Not everyone posesses the skillsets needed to 'scale down' the way that real trains move, and in any case the momentum is difficult to recreate in the smaller scales, but standards are improving and continue to improve.

 

I could rant for Wales about poor driving at shows, but won't just at the moment; just let's say I'm happy things are getting better.  But I don't in all honesty think that our established RTR companies should congratulate themselves on this result; their Chinese contractors and better knowledge of how real railways work in practice on our part is what has led to this eminently desirable outcome.

 

So, while I am deeply appreciative of what Hornby Dublo, Rovex Triang, and Airfix/Mainline have done historically to increase the already immense enjoyment I obtain from modelling railways, I am going to nominate the best and most influntial step change improvement in the quality of RTR models as being the Chinese can motor/worm/idler cog mechanism combination as the best thing that has ever happened to RTR model railways in my lifetime.  It is fair at this point to mention that Hornby Dublo's introduction in 1938 was fourteen years before my lifetime... 

[MJI]

Locos the advent of mainline and airfix with handrails and decent lining. Later better motors, with the 56.

 

Lima with big selection of cheap diesel ripe for detailing.

 

Stock mainline rbr, airfix 2d

 

Wagons, not sure as i relied a lot on kits.

[298]

My first vote would be for CAD and 3d printing. The ability to scratchbuild and repeat without starting all over again at home and not rely on RTR companies timescales, unrealistic collectors prices or availability for items nobody is going to produce anyway is a godsend. You of course need some commercial parts, but aren't necessarily tied to one manufacturer for these. 

 

 

The yellow Steeplecab was made from stretching a kit and has a number of home-made details from brass and styrene that would be about the limit I could produce accurately. The black one is 3d printed and although has a number of "design clever" compromises for details, these are smaller and less apparent. The only downside I find is as soon as I finish a loco, I find a new photo showing something I hadn't seen before...

 

My runner up would be for static grass. There are some photos of brilliant layouts from 40+ years ago that would eclipse most "that'll do" standards today, the only give away being the scenery would benefit from static grass to give it some close up definition.

 

[Cowley 47521]

Having had quite an eclectic mix of locos and stock in the 1980s and 90s I used to really enjoy detailing and tinkering around with Lima and Hornby diesels, unfortunately though the poor running characteristics of the motors in that era caused me to start losing interest a little, although I often had a project of some sort on the go.

 

The step change in quality when the new generation of models started coming on stream in the early 2000s was what really coaxed me back into modelling properly though. I went all in with a Hornby 50, a pair of Bachmann class 20s and various other locos and loads of stock. I think I must have had a bit of disposable income at the time!

 

A bit like @Chris M, I’d considered N gauge before and dipped my toe in the water a couple of times but it was my first proper look at a friends N gauge Dapol class 33 that really lit the fuse. I eventually sold all the 00 stuff I’d bought in the 2000s and invested it in N gauge as the quality of the models has improved over the last ten years. 
 

If my teenage self could have seen my current fleet now he’d have needed a cold shower! 😂

[D9020 Nimbus]

In British N gauge, I'd say the key improvements were:

• Bachmann's takeover of Graham Farish. While their models had generally improved, many were still crude representations and the tiny bogie and pony truck wheels on steam locos looked terrible. Even the existing models looked better when Bachmann had breathed on them.
• The Farish Blue Riband and Dapol Platinum ranges, generally improved detail and performance. And generally DCC ready, and increasingly sound ready, although there have been disappointments too — the Farish GW railcars and class 170 didn't get the upgrades that had been heralded.
• Coreless motors. They're controversial, but they've been used effectively in most recent Farish models, providing good slow speed performance and allowing pretty accurate models of some of the smaller steam locos — the Ivatt 2MT being the first I believe.

Not everything in the garden is rosy, but the detail and performance of recent models is at least comparable with European models and is still cheaper. My main gripe is the coupler installations. On some Farish locos the couplings do not lift at all; many Dapol items have couplings which don't lift sufficiently. But the most recent Dapol class 27s have seemed better to me than before, and models from the newer manufacturers: Sonic, Rapido and Revolution, seem to be generally fine.

 

Even Peco are finally getting round to re-tooling their wagons, which must have been some of the oldest tooling still in use in the scale.

[woodenhead]

35 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

• Bachmann's takeover of Graham Farish. While their models had generally improved, many were still crude representations and the tiny bogie and pony truck wheels on steam locos looked terrible. Even the existing models looked better when Bachmann had breathed on them.

 

I'd argue it was Dapol doing N gauge aggressively through Dave Jones (that DJM Dave Jones) that resulted in Bachmann improving the Graham Farish range and introducing the improved models.

 

Their first model not taken from the Poole moulds was the V2 - which replicated everything bad about GF and was panned, it's never been seen since and the next models were a big step up in quality.

[jjb1970]

My N gauge models are almost all Japanese. I still have a couple of Kato models I bought during my first visits to Japan as an engineer cadet on containerships in 1990 which are still smooth and quiet and still look the part. I remember at the time thinking two things:

 

-Why couldn't British N gauge models be made like that?; and

-Why were continental European N gauge models so much more expensive?

 

Even today, thanks to the immense popularity (hence production numbers) of Japanese N, a very clever application of a 'design clever' approach and a weakened yen in recent times Japanese models are crazily good value.

[PaulG]

I waited over 50 years for a 4mm RTR GER loco type for my c1950s East Anglia based model railway. 

 

What I would now like are some RTR GER bogie carriages.

 

I'm not a "fan" of Generic carriages!

 

Paul

[kevinlms]

On 08/04/2023 at 12:07, The Johnster said:

 

The new kids on the block realise that they have to at least match and preferably better the performance of the established players, and I certainly think that driving standards at exhibitions are in general much better than they were twenty, thirty, or forty years ago, but one still sometimes sees brickwall stops and stabbed rat starts...  Not everyone posesses the skillsets needed to 'scale down' the way that real trains move, and in any case the momentum is difficult to recreate in the smaller scales, but standards are improving and continue to improve.

 

I could rant for Wales about poor driving at shows, but won't just at the moment; just let's say I'm happy things are getting better.  But I don't in all honesty think that our established RTR companies should congratulate themselves on this result; their Chinese contractors and better knowledge of how real railways work in practice on our part is what has led to this eminently desirable outcome.

 

So, while I am deeply appreciative of what Hornby Dublo, Rovex Triang, and Airfix/Mainline have done historically to increase the already immense enjoyment I obtain from modelling railways, I am going to nominate the best and most influntial step change improvement in the quality of RTR models as being the Chinese can motor/worm/idler cog mechanism combination as the best thing that has ever happened to RTR model railways in my lifetime.  It is fair at this point to mention that Hornby Dublo's introduction in 1938 was fourteen years before my lifetime... 

How much of this 'poor driving', of 'brickwall stops' & 'stabbed rat starts', is related to poor choices of controller. There is a thread about this and still many claimed that their H&M Duettes, still provide stirling service.

[The Johnster]

Good point, especially given the difficulty of handling modern can motor mechs with older controllers.  But much is still down to unrealistic driving IMHO.  DCC has improved this situation quite a bit, but DC technology has not progressed much in fifty years.  
 

Good slow running and smooth stops & starts can be achieved in DC with my forty-year-old GM power controller and a more recent HH; the problem is that, if I were to want better performance from a DC controller, that controller probably doesn’t exist, and I can’t afford DCC.  I am sure that better performance is possible, but with the emphasis on DCC, nobody’s ever going to develop it.  
 

Seems to me, though, that some show drivers have little understanding of how real trains move and drive 1:76 trains at 1:1 speeds as if they were cars.  Then you get the opposite types, who indulge in snail-racing and let the snail win…

[D9020 Nimbus]

Then there was the story about someone travelling on one of the last passenger trains on the Culm Valley (it appeared in Railway Bylines many years ago). They were overtaken by a sheepdog…

[johnofwessex]

In terms of what I might like to see

 

1. Signals!!  Thank you Dapol, modellers just need to install them - and make them work!

2.  Couplings that look or behave something like the real thing, and

3. Wheels and Track ditto, P4 excluded obviously

[Jol Wilkinson]

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Good point, especially given the difficulty of handling modern can motor mechs with older controllers.  But much is still down to unrealistic driving IMHO.  DCC has improved this situation quite a bit, but DC technology has not progressed much in fifty years.  
 

Good slow running and smooth stops & starts can be achieved in DC with my forty-year-old GM power controller and a more recent HH; the problem is that, if I were to want better performance from a DC controller, that controller probably doesn’t exist, and I can’t afford DCC.  I am sure that better performance is possible, but with the emphasis on DCC, nobody’s ever going to develop it.  
 

Seems to me, though, that some show drivers have little understanding of how real trains move and drive 1:76 trains at 1:1 speeds as if they were cars.  Then you get the opposite types, who indulge in snail-racing and let the snail win…

I have found that good/smooth running on DC can be readily achieved if the loco mechanisms are well designed and built, there are good electrical connections between rails, wheels and pickups and decent controllers are used.

 

Track is often not as flat and level as the layout builder believes, rigid chassis actually have few wheels touching the rails and, as Andy Y recently questioned in a topic, modellers often don't invest in "good" controllers. In his exhibition loco clinics, Tony Wright often finds that simply cleaning wheels, cleaning and adjusting pickups and doing simple maintenance turns a poor running loco into a good one.

 

Good DC controllers? I was fortunate to buy some Pentrollers while they were still available and also have a couple of Modelex controllers that are also very good.

 

However for many DCC is seen as the cure all for poor running, with stay alive , etc. However, it negate getting the basics right.

[ROSSPOP]

I`m 71 now and have been a railway modeller since aged 12......behavioural counselling is improving things....not.

 

As  a kit builder ...nothing impressed until Blacksmith Models and  Brassmaster Models in 4mm.

 

RTR has never impressed until the recent 7mm offerings from Dapol for both body detailing and chassis performance.... and pricing.

In fact, most of the Dapol 7mm products are impressive.

 

For 7mm kit building  it has to be Finney and MOK  at the top of the list for me.

 

Quality sound decoders from Zimo with sound files from YOuchoos and Digitrains are icing on the kitbuilders cake.

[Clive martin]

For me the game changer was the early 2000s when Bachmann Heljan and Hornby introduced diesel outline models with much improved drive systems,throughout the 80s and 90s i used to enjoy detailing rtr models but as people have said ,often let down by poor running chassis,for me it was a dream come true when i was able to purchase all the odd ball and short lived classes of locos  class 28 class 15 etc all types i had always wanted but never thought we would see as rtr models!

[Classsix T]

On 03/04/2023 at 17:48, OnTheBranchline said:

Basically the questions are:

1) Since you've been in the hobby, when did you see the biggest jump in terms of loco/rolling stock build quality? (for example, when everything moved to China, etc) or has it been a general steady rise in detail since then? 

2) How much more detail do you want on a loco/rolling stock or are you happy with the current level?

1) Definitely the move to China, but even that has been progressive as the technology available to manufacture has evolved. Even more detailed models were inevitable. I actually think the movement of production of products (luxuries) to China has been something of an misstep that has led that country to be the default manufacturer for the world.

China was always going to make the most of it and the West lapped-up what started off as the exploitation of cheap labour. The CPR encouraged this and to their credit has been successful in a near unbelievable societal shift in bringing large swathes of its population out of poverty.

 

Admittedly I made hay whilst the sun shone and have bought many fantastic models for a third of the price they would cost me to purchase now.

 

2) This ties in to how much labour costs have increased in China since the State raised the wages it believes its citizens should be paid. Western companies, if they wished to keep the profit margin they were used to whilst labour was cheap in China should have transferred operations to Africa, India or other South Asian countries such as Vietnam.

 

They haven't, and so whilst I can't comment on the new wave of, shall we call them, ultra high fidelity models, at a price point above £150 I'm out. I perhaps might be the beneficiary of what were high fidelity models dripping into the pre-owned market though.

 

I actually believe the announcements of super duper models of unattainable levels of detail might be a market of diminishing returns as it costs folks out of impulse purchases.

I spent just shy of £148 quid on a Dapol 59 and might spring for same in EWS later and one Accurascale D9000, but Cavalex 56/60? Nah Hornby are fine.

 

C6T.

[DCB]

On 08/04/2023 at 03:07, The Johnster said:

In my view, the game changing moments were 1) the development of Hornby Dublo in 1938, 2) Rovex's 1949 introduction of 2-rail RTR, 3) the 'Airfix/Mainline' scale/detail/finish revolution, and 4) the adoption of can motor worm/idler cog drive. 

Agree.  I crashed my Ariel Arrow one foggy morning and while hanging around waiting for a lift home from Hospital wandered to

Cheltenham Model Centre and was amazed to see the "New" Airfix 1400 which I bought, must be talking 1977 here with a five year

gap since I previously bought anything to do with model railways.
e layshaft drive allowing sideplay on the driven axle transformed the ability of all wheel flanged 00  chassis to get round tight sub 2ft radius curves,

but I am not a fan of throw away non serviceable can motors.
Airfix also changed the game from needing to add detail to having to repair broken detail, while Mainline brought chronic unreliability to modelling and raised

planned obsolescence to an artform,  suddenly we were fitting RTR bodies to new chassis instead of new bodies to RTR chassis.
And somewhere between 1960 and 1990 Triang's ugly but easily adjusted  metal tension lock coupling was superseded by a plastic versions which droop and look even uglier.
Sound will be the next game changer.  90% of the technology is available, 100% for diesels but its like handing a bloke who plays the spoons down the local pub a Stradivarius  Violin and expecting him to play Rhapsody in Blue.  99.999999999% of us aren't skilled enough and those who get sound ball park right  get the braking and acceleration wrong...

Edited April 13, 2023 by DCB

[The Johnster]

The Airfix 14xx was a very brave attempt, I thought, with an innovative (for British RTR) layshaft and CV joint drive and the sprung plunger pickups that proved eventually to be the mech's Achilles Heel.  It was, in good condition, a revolution in slow and controllable running, and was as good as any current RTR in that respect despite the traction tyre.  In fact it is of course still in production by Hornby, with a retooled chassis that doesn't, by all accounts, run as well as the original Airfix and TTBOMK still doesn't feature cab detail, but there is not much wrong with the scale and detail of the bodyshell.

 

I agree that the 'unservicability' of a sealed can motor is less than ideal, but they are very easily replaced and not expensive.  Touch wood, especially as I'm tempting fate by mentioning it, but I've not had a failure in seven years. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by The Johnster