Model Railway Happiness

[Darius43]

Recently, when Railway Modeller made their entire back catalogue available to digital subscribers, I spent many happy hours revisiting railway modelling times of the 1970s and ‘80s.  In doing this it struck me that there appeared to be a lot more acceptance then of the low fidelity rtr models compared to the highly detailed rtr models on offer today.   There also appeared to be more enthusiasm for improving rtr models and less angst about their deficiencies.  This is of course pre internet and web forums so there was less opportunity for spleen venting apart from the letters page of the model railway mags.

 

Reading threads here on RMWeb there appears to me to be a tendency for modellers to scrutinise new models for any and all errors and then report them almost gleefully.  This is followed by indignation and declarations of models to be returned, orders cancelled or purchases aborted.   With models costing over £200 and beyond there is perhaps some justification for this but back in the 1970s it seemed to me that model locos we’re similarly expensive in relative terms.   
 

The point of all this rambling is: are we happier today with these high tech super detailed models that seemingly, despite their high fidelity, never meet our expectations or were we happier as modellers 30 to 40 years ago?

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

 

[33C]

I'm happiest bringing these old models back from the dead, then running 'em round the oval. All the "details" my imagination fills in. But, give me a cheapo train set....watch out!

[Wheatley]

We accepted them because we didn't know any different (because for all practical purposes there wasn't any different), and we knuckled down and improved them because there was no other way. I still remember Monty Well's ground breaking articles on updating RTR diesels, he was slightly peeved in one of them that he'd spent a couple of paragraphs explaining how to make a 37 or 40 horn cover from a lump of filler only for Crownline (?) to bring out an etched one  shortly afterwards ! 'Choice' meant deciding whether you wanted the blue one or the green one.  Apart from those diesels which succumbed to my failure to match Mr Well's standards I still have most of my 1980s locos, some are now on their second replacement chassis and one is mostly three second hand ones cobbled together, but they're still 'mine'. Currently on the workbench is an attempt to make a couple of Conflat Ls from Tri-ang ones and Parkside chassis, which idea I think I might have nicked off you so thank you :-). I am gradually acquiring second hand examples of the rest of my 'Freightmaster' Hornby set from 50 (!) years ago to be similarly upgraded, although I think trying to pass off the dropside wagon as a Medfit might be a conversion too far.  

 

It's like TV now, how on earth did we manage with three channels ? We did, but the result was what Douglas Adams (I think) described as "the long dark Sunday tea time of the soul" when the choice was Songs of Praise, Highway, or whatever minority sport was on BBC2. Or read a book. 

 

My 15yo screen-addicted nephew asked me the other day what we did in IT lessons when I was at school. "Woodwork".  

Edited April 5, 2023 by Wheatley

[Andy Hayter]

There is I think a natural progression of expectations.

 

130 years ago man dreamt of powered flight.  Today we  dram of going to Mars.

100 years ago e waited on a letter delivered twice - sometimes thrice, per day.  Today we get anxious if we have not had  3 emails/whatsapp/facebook notifications in the last hour.

 

Personally I am glad of where we are and look forward to what will come

 

[Legend]

I'm also revelling in the Railway Modeller back catalogue . Its the first time I've subscribed to a magazine , and I did it just for the back catalogue . The first RM I got was March 73 I think . It had Mallaig and Glenfinnan in N gauge in it . I remembered various layouts over time and I've previously said in another thread that Hanbury (March 82 I think ) was a favourite .  It ran Hornby Dublo/ Wrenn  as well as some kit stuff and it really was effective - particularly in operating and timetabling .

 

I suppose for me it has always been that way . I prefer layouts that have interesting operation and an ambience .They've somehow captured the atmosphere and it maybe that thats through card buildings and backscenes rather than pendonesque scenery. In that respect I don't think it matters that they run the latest high detailed loco .

 

I've also written elsewhere that I do run my old Tri-ang Hornby models and get just as much enjoyment out of running them as later more highly detailed models . I suppose there is a nostalgia factor in there . 

 

Were we more accepting back then .....yes probably , because we had to accept if you wanted a Class 47 you went for the Hornby one in blue with these horrible raised lines from its two tone green days. because it was the only one available . Now theres Hornby/ Lima/Railroad/Heljan/Bachmann/ Vi Trains versions all available , we can be much more discerning .  Price is a factor though and at £200+ it does create an expectation that everything should be correct for that money. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Legend

[BernardTPM]

7 hours ago, Darius43 said:

Recently, when Railway Modeller made their entire back catalogue available to digital subscribers, I spent many happy hours revisiting railway modelling times of the 1970s and ‘80s.  In doing this it struck me that there appeared to be a lot more acceptance then of the low fidelity rtr models compared to the highly detailed rtr models on offer today.   There also appeared to be more enthusiasm for improving rtr models and less angst about their deficiencies. 

 

With models costing over £200 and beyond there is perhaps some justification for this but back in the 1970s it seemed to me that model locos we’re similarly expensive in relative terms.  

 

They can be relatively more expensive now. As an example the Triang Hornby Hymek was £2/19/3 when new in late 1967. Using the BoE rate of inflation index that's about £44 now. An EFE Rail (Heljan) one at RRP is now £159.95, not far off four times the price, though you'd have to spend a lot of time and money on new parts to bring the T-H one to anywhere near the level of detail and accuracy. If you had to pay someone to do the upgrade it would be a no-brainer to buy the better model, but it does seem reasonable to expect the more expensive model not to have a serious flaw. As to what constitutes a serious flaw that's for the individual to decide.

 

On the other hand if you like chopping, changing, scratchbuilding new parts and detailing then you could have hours of fun from a second hand old Hymek.

[Wheatley]

53 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

 

They can be relatively more expensive now. As an example the Triang Hornby Hymek was £2/19/3 when new in late 1967. Using the BoE rate of inflation index that's about £44 now. An EFE Rail (Heljan) one at RRP is now £159.95, not far off four times the price, though you'd have to spend a lot of time and money on new parts to bring the T-H one to anywhere near the level of detail and accuracy.

In the past I've used the current Hornby Railroad models as like for like(ish) comparisons for 1980s/90s pre-China prices, they don't stack up too badly. Smokey Joe and its legion derivatives is an obvious one.  

Edited April 5, 2023 by Wheatley

[97406]

You could create some great detailed models from the RTR items from the 70s/80s/90s (and before of course!) and having had a resurgence on interest in the hobby recently, it’s great to apply the same techniques to modern RTR stuff.

 

If you hang around long enough, models like the Bachmann 37 become available for less preposterous prices and they respond well to improvements such a Laserglaze and weathering. I wouldn’t enjoy the hobby anywhere near as much if I just plonked items on the track and ran them.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by 97406

[CKPR]

The other treasures lurking in the RM digital archive are the real labours of love, the largely scratchbuilt layouts and individual pieces of rolling stock that are just so atmospheric and evocative even though they are not accurate to the n-th degree - have a look at RM for 1976 and you'll see some marvellous modelling that didn't all come from a factory, let alone one in China.

[kevinlms]

2 minutes ago, CKPR said:

The other treasures lurking in the RM digital archive are the real labours of love, the largely scratchbuilt layouts and individual pieces of rolling stock that are just so atmospheric and evocative even though they are not accurate to the n-th degree - have a look at RM for 1976 and you'll see some marvellous modelling that didn't all come from a factory, let alone one in China.

The mid 70s were a step forward in layouts.

 

Suddenly gone were the featured layouts, with track just laid on the baseboard material, without ballast.

RTR locos had better running qualities, because better pick ups and more of them started to be fitted. Locos had better paint jobs, than the heavily varnished Tri-ang Hornby of the era.

Coaches started to look like Big 4 stock and not just BR Mk1's with LMS/LNER/GWR/SR transfers stuck on.

Wagons, still had a mostly universal 10ft wheelbase chassis, from moulds produced in the 1950s, but Mainline and especially Airfix, made some much improved wagons, with neater chassis.

 

Obviously, a long way to go, but the start had been made with Airfix, Mainline and to a lesser degree Lima.

[BernardTPM]

Also a large range of drawings were published, in the 1960s in particular. If only the old Model Railway News and Model Railway Constructors were available in the same way.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I've no doubt that modellers were more content with the available products then. But those who weren't had little ability to express themselves publicly — these were the days when RM (owned by a manufacturer) referred to the Trade (always with a capital "T") and reviews were far from critical — indeed they once stated that they were intended to let readers know what was available, not to pass judgement on the items concerned.

 

I suspect you would get a quite different impression if reading issues of Model Railway Constructor from the same era. Unfortunately such an archive is not available; presumably Key Publishing have the rights, but whether they will ever provide an archive in the future (or have the magazines available to scan, or the time or staff to scan them) must be very doubtful.

[Legend]

8 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I've no doubt that modellers were more content with the available products then. But those who weren't had little ability to express themselves publicly — these were the days when RM (owned by a manufacturer) referred to the Trade (always with a capital "T") and reviews were far from critical — indeed they once stated that they were intended to let readers know what was available, not to pass judgement on the items concerned.

 

I suspect you would get a quite different impression if reading issues of Model Railway Constructor from the same era. Unfortunately such an archive is not available; presumably Key Publishing have the rights, but whether they will ever provide an archive in the future (or have the magazines available to scan, or the time or staff to scan them) must be very doubtful.

 

That is a very good point .  Back in the seventies there really wasn't any medium for complaints other than a letter to the mags , and even then would it be printed?  However these days you have forums such as this , facebook etc etc .  So maybe we were just as disgruntled back then but we can express it more now .

[The Johnster]

I’m much happier today, with models to goods standards of scale, detail, and finish, and acceptable standards of performance.  I started off at xmas 1958 with a Rovex Triang Black Princess set, and even a 6yo Johnster was aware that the curves were too sharp, the loco and coaches were too short, boilers didn’t have skirts, and that real flanges not only didn’t look like that, they were present on all the driving wheels!

 

The first RTR models I was reasonably happy with were Triang’s Brush Type 2 and ‘scale length’ Mk1 coaches, but of course I would not accept them now!  Started taking the Constructor in my teens, and became aware of a world beyond RTR, most of which was (and still is) beyond my ability, though I was eventually able to build whitemetal loco kits.  This was at a time when you were considered very highly skilled of you could include brake detail without short-circuiting everything. 
 

Airfix/Mainline blew that world out of the water, but I was still not happy; the pancake motor/spur gear drive and traction tyres ruined any chance of reliable slow running.  The move to China coincided with the adoption of much better can motors driving through worm and idler reduction gearing improved matters considerably; my running would no doubt be even further improved if I could afford DCC.  It’s a long way from the Black Princess!

 
I’m not a rivet counter and will accept compromises such as tension-lock couplings  now that my steadiness of hand has diminished in my dotage, and I don’t model ‘out of the box’, all of my RTR is ‘worked up’ in some way to achieve the results I want even if it’s only real coal and a weathering washover, but current and recently tooled RTR is a very good base to improve from.  I define ‘recently tooled’ aa anything with an NEM pocket…

 

Even RTP track is getting better, and a relaying with Peco code75 chaired bullhead is a distinct possibility!

 

Happy puppy here!

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I've no doubt that modellers were more content with the available products then. But those who weren't had little ability to express themselves publicly — these were the days when RM (owned by a manufacturer) referred to the Trade (always with a capital "T") and reviews were far from critical — indeed they once stated that they were intended to let readers know what was available, not to pass judgement on the items concerned.

 

I suspect you would get a quite different impression if reading issues of Model Railway Constructor from the same era. Unfortunately such an archive is not available; presumably Key Publishing have the rights, but whether they will ever provide an archive in the future (or have the magazines available to scan, or the time or staff to scan them) must be very doubtful.

I doubt whether Key Publishing (or anyone else taking it over) would be interested - especially as they have their own model railway title. Fact is that even if there was a demand for the MRC, what about the rest of their library, other customers would want the other titles.

 

Peco can and did do it, because they only have two titles (the Continental Modeller obviously) and I suspect it still only occurred, because they had a senior staff member, who was interested and probably did the majority of the organisation of the work.

Presumably, they paid a professional scanning company, as there would have around 800 back issues, for which no electronic version existed.

[Andy Hayter]

We should be careful in comparing models from the 60s/70s with those of today.

 

I remember a Hornby Flying Scotsman being offered late 70s at a tad under £20.  If I had one of those today, what would I want to do with it?

 

1.  That flangeless centre driver sticks out like a sore thumb - so replace the driving wheels and while you are at it replace the other wheels to bring them all to the same standard.  Rough cost - £100.

2.  It would make sense to change the coggy 3 pole motor with something better.  DJH off a motor and gear box at around £75 but I think you could probably find a good alternative at around £40.

3.  The motion will need to be changed with an etched NS version that gives the complete motion and not just the Hornby pastiche.  Around £20

4.  The moulded on handrails and ejector pipe need replacing with proper wire/ hand rail knobs and brass tube.  Another £20 or so.

5.  Of course now the paintwork is damaged so you will need green, black, gloss varnish (for the decals) and a matt or semi gloss final finish - at say £5 per pot that is yet anther £20.

6.  Then of course there are the transfers - £20

7.  You might well want to replace that paper nameplate (which will start to peel) with an etched one - say £15.

8.  And replace the large Triang couplings of the 70s with something finer and the NEM boxes.  Say £10. 

 

So all told around £265 - and please don't pick on individual prices this is meant to be indicative rather than an accountant's ROI calculation.

 

Compare that with the current offering at Hattons at £252.

https://www.hattons.co.uk/619212/hornby_r3991_class_a3_4_6_2_60103_flying_scotsman_in_br_green_with_early_emblem/stockdetail

 

Probably at a better standard than many of us could achieve with the above upgrades.  

[33C]

Improved Triang Flying Scotsman, yours. Latest, all singing and dancing, Hornby RTR, everybody's. Surely that is the point of "railway modelling"?  🤔

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, 33C said:

Improved Triang Flying Scotsman, yours. Latest, all singing and dancing, Hornby RTR, everybody's. Surely that is the point of "railway modelling"?  🤔

 

For some it certainly will be and I don't decry that but for many that is not what it is all about.  There will be those for whom the building of a loco is everything but for others they want to operate their layout.  For yet others it is building the setting in which the models will operate or be seen.

[298]

6 hours ago, CKPR said:

 - have a look at RM for 1976 and you'll see some marvellous modelling that didn't all come from a factory, let alone one in China.

 

That's why I think CAD and 3d printing is the revolution of the century- to end up with a model that has been made entirely at home with only a few generic bits (wheels, couplings, motor, etc.) and can accommodate subtle differences without having to cast from a master or work from flat etches. You can even then share them worldwide and earn some pocket money from them if you're so inclined.

 

Unfortunately though there are downsides, not only with models themselves as I've found details that are clear on new photos that I'd missed on blurry ones, but newer layouts- less time spent making stock doesn't necessarily mean more time to improve in other areas such as scenery and operation, and punters seem less tolerant to seeing the same layouts over and over again and always want to see new ones instead of the lifetime projects...

[Rugd1022]

I still dip into my (small) collection of old RMs from time to time and the joy of actually doing some modelling comes through in most of the articles within. It's funny this thread should appear this week too, as last week I was working 6M68 on the Midland Mainline and flying through Chiltern Green it struck me what a great model it would make, then I remembered the wonderful N Gauge layout of the very same location which was in the April 1980 RM!

[Jol Wilkinson]

On 05/04/2023 at 12:24, BernardTPM said:

 

They can be relatively more expensive now. As an example the Triang Hornby Hymek was £2/19/3 when new in late 1967. Using the BoE rate of inflation index that's about £44 now. An EFE Rail (Heljan) one at RRP is now £159.95, not far off four times the price, though you'd have to spend a lot of time and money on new parts to bring the T-H one to anywhere near the level of detail and accuracy. If you had to pay someone to do the upgrade it would be a no-brainer to buy the better model, but it does seem reasonable to expect the more expensive model not to have a serious flaw. As to what constitutes a serious flaw that's for the individual to decide.

 

On the other hand if you like chopping, changing, scratchbuilding new parts and detailing then you could have hours of fun from a second hand old Hymek.

Income inflation should also be considered. Apparently £1000 was considered a good salary in 1967. The average salary on 2021 was £29,600. So todays models can probably be considered more affordable. The posts in new product announcement topics would indicate that people are buying plenty of the new improved models each year.

[BernardTPM]

That would still make the T-H Hymek under £90, but it's true it's nowhere near as good as the Heljan/EFE Rail one either in terms of detail, accuracy or performance. I have to admit to being a wage under performer though.

Edited April 7, 2023 by BernardTPM

[pirouets]

On 05/04/2023 at 05:05, Darius43 said:

are we happier today with these high tech super detailed models that seemingly, despite their high fidelity, never meet our expectations or were we happier as modellers 30 to 40 years ago?

 I don't anyone has ever been happier than Geoff Mason who in Feb 72's modeller wrote - As I did not seem to have sufficent time for the railway I gave up my job with an insurance company and joing the local GPO enabling me to spend more time on teh railway as I finish work at 12:30 each day and this gives me every afternoon and evening free.

 

Not sure I am quite at the point I can ditch what I do to try that sort of life just yet.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Didn't John Allen do the same thing, giving up work and relying on a small private income to devote himself to building his layout?

[Hibelroad]

I seem to remember reading about Iain Rice pondering the improvements to RTR a good few years ago and wondering if this would give modellers more time to improve the detailing of track, buildings and scenery. I’m not sure if it has.