Are current RTR models too good for the average modeller?

[Jeff Smith]

By this I mean can the average modeller match the fidelity of recent RTR releases with appropriately detailed layout and scenery?

 

Personally I feel that my kit or scratch built rolling stock matches my layout because both are at the same skill level.  How do others feel?

[The Johnster]

I certainly can't match current RTR locos or stock, but I can probably equal most RTP buildings with kits, and easily better brick or stone paper, what is this, the 1950? Scenery isn't my strong point, but it isn't available RTP so I do the best I can.  I try to do the best I can in all aspects of railway modelling, and do not worry if the RTR stock is to a standard inconsistent with my less skilled modelling efforts.

[fulton]

I run the latest RTR next to my less than perfect kit built examples, to my eye they do not jar, but compliment each other, adding to the overall scene, a bit of weathering and personal details such as loco crew and lamps, adds your own touch, on my small American exhibition layout I run very basic Athearn Blue Box wagons with the latest hi. fi. RTR, stand back a couple of feet and you cannot tell them apart.

[Legend]

I think we go back to the three feet test (or is it two with my old eyesight!) . Can you see the difference?  I'm currently running  my old Triang black BR B12 with the Hornby D16 running Gresley Crimson and Cream "trainset " coaches - I don't think they jar . I'm getting just as much pleasure from both.

 

On the running side I do think some releases have too fine tolerances . Its still 50/50 whether my Accurascale Deltic makes it round my layout without derailing , while everything else still sails round without difficulty . I know my trackwork isn't perfect and will relay a section in an attempt to sort this out , but finer tolerances are maybe more problematical than  visual detail on modern rtr.

[298]

4 hours ago, fulton said:

I run the latest RTR next to my less than perfect kit built examples, to my eye they do not jar, but compliment each other, adding to the overall scene, a bit of weathering and personal details such as loco crew and lamps, adds your own touch, on my small American exhibition layout I run very basic Athearn Blue Box wagons with the latest hi. fi. RTR, stand back a couple of feet and you cannot tell them apart.

 

At a distance you are more likely to see the blurry lettering rather than the lack of separate grabs- when I had to quickly finish six Accurail 36' boxcars I left the moulded grabs in place because it would have taken a lot longer to complete and not been as uniform as just repainting them and adding my own custom printed decals. And when I tried to print handrails on place on Interurban cars I had to then change them to holes to add brass wire, but what I should have done to save more time would have been to follow Hornby 's lamented "Design clever" standards and just make them more substantial and webbed into the body as you really can't tell at exhibition viewing distances.

 

Every now and then a model is released that quickly seems to end up on all possible layouts- the Bachmann 08 did 20 years ago and more recently it's releases from the same manufacturer seemingly on every 009 layout and I often wonder what layout owners did or how they managed before.

 

 

[Halvarras]

I wonder what percentage of modellers overall are of the "I know I can't see it but it's good to know it's there" mindset? It's only my opinion of course but the only benefit I can see in including every underframe detail on RTR rolling stock, clever though it undoubtedly is, is to make derailments look more realistic. And lately there's a trend to include full interior detail in guard's vans - even with lighting fitted these vehicles' typically small windows, usually in the body ends and inset behind a veranda, all but keep it hidden. Interior detail on sleeping cars is also of dubious value, although it's acceptable if it entails no additional assembly. Not the case with etched luggage racks........ 

 

And that's my point really; we will all have devices - phone, TV, car, etc - with numerous features we'll never use but we've paid for them nonetheless........

[spamcan61]

Personally I'd rather "manufacturers" concentrate on consistent quality (e.g. detail fitted correctly, livery application, smooth running mechanism) rather than invisible detail and ever more complex electronics (even for dc), but that's not where the market is at, "gimmicks" sell in all walks of life.

Edited November 12, 2023 by spamcan61

[MarkSG]

We have to bear in mind that we're not the only market for manufacturers. The collector segment - the people who buy models primarily to put them in display cases, and who think that the value of a second-hand model is determined by the condition of the box as well as the model itself - is keen on more detail, because, unlike us, they will tend to spend more time looking at the models close-up.

 

I don't have any problem with the manufacturers addressing that market; anything which supports a healthy industry is, ultimately, good for all of us. Where it does possibly become an issue is where a focus on the collector market prices out the other end of the market, the train set buyers who just want something nice to run and don't care all that much about fine detail and the state of the box it came in. Because we, and the manufacturers, need that market sector too; for us as hobbyists it's a common route into the hobby and for the manufacturers it's a source of mass-market sales that isn't so quality-sensitive.

[Chris M]

I think the answer to the opening question is largely a resounding yes. Modern loco models are very close to the real thing and finely detailed but far too many layouts are built using techniques and standards from 30 or more years ago. I acknowledge 3D printed items and laser cut kits are welcome advances.  Nearly all layouts even today are still built with track on a flat baseboard and then scenery built up around it. Surely it’s time layout building caught up with the excellent models that are availble.

 

Another thing is that these excellent models often come with accessory bags and in pristine condition. Now I can understand folk being reluctant to weather a £200+ loco but it really won’t look right without at least a modicum of weathering especially on the plastic looking roof. Maybe cheaper, less detailed locos that people weren’t afraid to weather might end up looking more realistic than highly detailed expensive but unweathered ones. I can’t understand why so many locos, even in layout photos for magazines don’t have details added. 
 

In conclusion, I do believe today’s high spec locos are more advanced than most folks layouts. What’s more these expensive beasts have stopped the fine

tradition of trying to improve the breed by working on them.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Chris M

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, layout design as well as details on the layout are often not very imaginative.  Flat baseboards are obviously easy to build and generally suitable for station areas, MPDs, etc. but plain track was often transitioning from cutting to embankment - this is how railways were built level in undulating countryside; spoil from the cuttings being used to build embankments.  Open top baseboards are also easy to build but require considerably more planning.  They are generally much lighter too.  I think many solid top baseboards are build before finalising the track design and in fact there is a place for them with setrack and temporary layouts but would emphasize even more the RTR/layout contrast.

 

Regarding fine detail items on RTR - great for static display but fragile for handling.

[Chris M]

With a Lima loco the average modeller could afford to have a go at improving it and usually succeed. In many ways its a shame that this can no longer happen. Well it can if you buy secondhand.

[298]

1 hour ago, Chris M said:

With a Lima loco the average modeller could afford to have a go at improving it and usually succeed. In many ways its a shame that this can no longer happen. Well it can if you buy secondhand.

 

Or Hornby Railroad...

 

Don't forget that Craftsman detailing packs used to be at the upper elechon of detailing when quantity often trumped quality, even if variety didn't. But was the time spent on this or kitbuilding really cost effective...? There are still plenty of other skills to master within the hobby but you could assume with the obvious time saving from just running RTR would lead to a higher standard of layout, but to be honest I don't think it has as much as it should.

[Robin Brasher]

Some people can match the fidelity of ready to run locomotives and rolling stock with an appropriately designed layout and scenery but if you can't you can always pay someone who can.

 

In my model of Corfe Castle Station I paid a friend to paint the backscene and I recently bought a model of a London and South Western Goods Shed. In some respects the ready to plant Goods Shed is better than mine but I think there may be some errors in the livery.  I prefer a painted backscene to a photographic backscene because I think a photograph behind a hand built scene looks wrong in comparison with a hand painted backscene. I also think that the professionally made Corfe Castle sign looks better than the hand painted sign that it replaced.

[McC]

6 hours ago, Legend said:

I think we go back to the three feet test (or is it two with my old eyesight!) . Can you see the difference?  I'm currently running  my old Triang black BR B12 with the Hornby D16 running Gresley Crimson and Cream "trainset " coaches - I don't think they jar . I'm getting just as much pleasure from both.

 

On the running side I do think some releases have too fine tolerances . Its still 50/50 whether my Accurascale Deltic makes it round my layout without derailing , while everything else still sails round without difficulty . I know my trackwork isn't perfect and will relay a section in an attempt to sort this out , but finer tolerances are maybe more problematical than  visual detail on modern rtr.

 

Please reach out to support (assuming your track isn’t a rollercoaster :) ) 

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, 298 said:

releases from the same manufacturer seemingly on every 009 layout and I often wonder what layout owners did or how they managed before.

 

The availability of such models generates layouts to run them on; the owners didn't manage at all before because the layouts didn't exist until then.  A similar example would be the explosion of interest in SR third-rail layouts in the 90s and 00s, very much led by Hornby and Bachmann.  Back in the 80s and previously, these were quite unusual and there was a view that emus were boring; I didn't share it!

 

2 hours ago, Chris M said:

far too many layouts are built using techniques and standards from 30 or more years ago. I acknowledge 3D printed items and laser cut kits are welcome advances. 

 

Agreed, with the proviso that the 3D or laser kit is of  good quality.  As far as 3D goes, there's an awful lot of dross out there, and stuff produced on domestic printers can be a bit blobby as corners/edges that should be sharp 90 degree are radiussed.  It seems expensive, especially through Shapeways which induces import duties and all sorts of complications, a good idea floundering in red tape.  Often inferior prints of prototypes that available high-quality finished RTR models of are offered, which seems pointless to me.  Why would anyone want to buy a printed A4 bodyshell, for example, that costs nearly a much as a Railroad A4 which is not the worst tooling out there!  But there are some items that can only be obtained as 3D prints and they cost what they cost.

 

Lasercut will provide you with a robust building shell and perhaps some basic details, and I am sometime staggered at the fine detail that can be provided for such things as sash window frames, but it is not good at round detail like guttering and downpipes.  Again, there is some dreadful toy-dross on offer, and a good bit of what I think of as 'twee', and quality varies a lot, as does value for money (paying more is no guide to quality).  And you will, again, have to finish the model yourself.

 

I am happy to do this myself, and enjoy both the modelling and the uniqueness of my iteration of it, but many people may find this a bit close to the edge of their comfort zones.  And some of the better kits are fairly complex; had an LCUT 'drive through' (sic, can I have fries and a coke with that, please) goods shed in the post today and it is not what you'd call a simple beginner's shake the box kit, and will need due care in assembling it.  I bought it not because it is lasercut or for the challenge but because it will fit the site I have for it and should look the part; that said, I will certainly enjoy the assembly and finishing!

 

A plus with lasercut buildings as opposed to plastic or resin is the easy control of light bleed if you want internal lighting.  The result with a good quality well detailed kit finished with care should be 'up to the mark' with RTR.

3 hours ago, Chris M said:

 

Another thing is that these excellent models often come with accessory bags and in pristine condition. Now I can understand folk being reluctant to weather a £200+ loco but it really won’t look right without at least a modicum of weathering especially on the plastic looking roof. Maybe cheaper, less detailed locos that people weren’t afraid to weather might end up looking more realistic than highly detailed expensive but unweathered ones. I can’t understand why so many locos, even in layout photos for magazines don’t have details added.

 

I think this is related to the perception of resale value in the eBay universe.  My attitude to this is that, when I buy a model (and in the last seven years since returning to the hobby I've never paid full rrp for any of them, even pre-ordered new releases), that is money lost and gone forever.  I have no intention to sell models, it would be like selling my children (and I didn't get as much as I wanted for them), though I sometimes give them away to loving homes...  This may seem a wasteful and profligrate attitude to some, but I buy models for specific jobs on the layout in requisite numbers, and the attitude frees me up to weather or detail or re-number/re-livery, remove topfeeds on Baccy panniers, or anything else I want to do to achieve the exact model I want.  I really can't be *rsed with selling on the Bay, far too much faff and stress for me!  Happy to buy stuff from it, though I very rarely bother with auctions, time suckers.

 

As for adding details from the packet, I add brake rodding and vac/steam heating bags but use tension lock couplers because of my age and deteriorating eyesight and hand-eye co-ordination.  Cab doors, fall plates, yeah, stick 'em on.  This immediately destroys the model's 'NIB' status and erodes any resale value.

[Halvarras]

4 hours ago, Chris M said:

I can’t understand why so many locos, even in layout photos for magazines don’t have details added. 

 

 

I've seen them too - disc headcode diesels without discs and Dapol Class 22s with no side valances (which rob the green ones of their very prominent stripes). These incomplete models are often weathered though - modelling priorities seem to have shifted over the past 20 years.

 

Bufferbeam pipework is a different matter - if it would interfere with the coupling type in use then it can't be fitted - or maybe fitted and trimmed back, as Heljan suggests on their models. Fitting at one end is OK and looks great, provided the loco will only ever be used on a continuous-run layout.

 

On the other hand I recall seeing a Graham Farish Class 25/3 fitted with headcode discs on a layout featured in a magazine a few years back 🙄!

[The Johnster]

12 hours ago, Legend said:

think we go back to the three feet test (or is it two with my old eyesight!)

 

The three feet test (or is it two with my old eyesight) is a useful guide for exhibition layouts where the punters don't often get less than three feet from the models.  But even at three feet and with my tired old eyes, some of the shortcomings of older RTR would be obvious, the typical 70s/80s visible spur gears, overthick bodysides with deep-set windows, silly little blobby mushroom plastic buffers, those dreadful Lima tension locks, no detail below the running plate and the risible coupling rods on Lima J50s and 94xx, ride height on older Triang Hornby/Hornby toolings, plastic coal, no lamp irons, motors filling cabs, unpainted wheel rims and handrails, moulded smokebox darts, brake blocks not in line with the wheels (to be fair to the manufacturers, it was the wheels that were out of position not the brake blocks), that sort of thing.  21st century RTR is much better in all of those respects, and it runs better as well!

 

At home, things are different because you are looking at the models at a much closer range.  Scaled up, three feet is 228 feet in 1:1 modelling, about three and a half 64' mk.1 coaches.  Sitting at my control position at home, I can get easily to around a foot, roughly equal to a 75' mk.3 coach, and in closer with not much more effort; detail becomes much more apparent at this sort of range, and I start appreciating separate grab and door handles on coaches, for example.  This is where there is perhaps room for future development such as DCC-controlled reversers and engines in the engine rooms of diesels, revolving drive shafts on demus, even brakes that can be moved away from wheels when the train is moving. 

 

It bothers me enough to notice that most RTR and kit coaching stock of pre-mk1 design has the door droplight glass in the same plane as the main windows even when some windows are modelled partly or fully open, when these should be inset a little and more vertically set.  It makes a difference if you are looking along the coach into the light, as the more vertical glass reflects differently...

 

All the above comments are to some extent predicated on an assumption of good lighting.  This leads to a possible use for older toolings that display some or all of the above shortcomings; night operation.  The provision of lighting on models is not a difficult matter, and in fact the bulk of model lighting, especially on steam age layouts, is far too bright!  A more realistic approach would see the trains very poorly illuminated in most locations, and imperfections are of much less importance.  A few locos and coaches, and brake vans, fitted up for night work while the daytime hi-fi models are out of service, is a good use for older stock and keeps the costs down!  I would mention that overthick bodysides on coaches are particularly prominent in this situation, though; replacement Comet brass coach sides might be worth the effort!

[Hal Nail]

On 10/11/2023 at 03:37, Jeff Smith said:

can the average modeller match the fidelity of recent RTR releases with appropriately detailed layout and scenery?

Most threads for new locos have photos on people's layouts and generally the answer to your question is a resounding no. I don't think it matters though and certainly would not advocate reducing quality on that basis.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I cannot get anywhere near the quality of current RTR OO for appearance, if there is glazing and other than black paint involved. So I confine my DIY efforts to small black locos and wagons all of which were rarely clean. 

 

Since I don't bother with scenery beyond ballast and track filth, I don't feel outclassed in that respect.

 

Mechanism, at need I can still match the best of RTR loco drives, and beat much of it. Many models falI short in matters relating to mechanism and need work: replacing flangeless wheels with flanged, replacing couplings and loco to tender linkages, top of my list. (I would prefer a focus on superior mechanism in RTR, over the likes of very detailed cab interiors, most of which is invisible when running.)

 

And finally:

Are current RTR models too good for the average modeller?

 

That made me grin, it instantly conjured up the best director I ever worked for, on my reporting findings and correction of a major client's 'difficulties'. 

"We really have to find a better class of customer." (Authenticity demands a 'locust valley lockjaw' accent.) 

So, my thanks, for prompting the recollection of a happy memory.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Many models falI short in matters relating to mechanism and need work: replacing flangeless wheels with flanged, replacing couplings and loco to tender linkages, top of my list.

 

I really don't think you can level that charge at any current RTR products.  I can't think of any with flangeless wheels (except 9Fs or others where flangeless wheels are prototypical), most tender locos now come with tender couplings that spring out to enable negoitiation of setrack radii, and NEM couplings are an industry standard but are easily removed.  I'd have agreed with you 30 years ago, and included misdemeanors such as spur gears visible and drawing attention to themselves by revolving, tenders pushing locos around, and traction tyres (all a result of the use of weak transverse-mounted pancake spindizzies that had to run at insane speeds to develop any usable power and drive through spur gears to reduce it to sensible speeds; it was still difficult to control smoothly at any speed below about a scale 20mph and the traction tyres, Satan's expectorant, messed around with pickup performance, while frequently requiring firebox shapes to be distorted).

 

Since production moved to China, RTR has benefitted from their default can motors driving through worm and idler reduction gears with a final drive ratio of about 38:1, a vast improvement in power and performance (not that both couldn't be improved further).  The industry finally got the hang of wiper pickups after five decades of rubbish, and current models run very well indeed so long as track is properly laid, and railheads, wheel tyres and backs, and pickups are kept clean. 

 

Over the last decade or so there have been wobbles with split-chassis pickup and 'no user-serviceable parts inside' setups where the bottom half of the loco comes off in a complete assembly, remember the fuss over the Oxford Dean Goods, and many modellers complain that the sealed can motors cannot be repaired; they're not designed to be, you're supposed to replace them!  But in general RTR models are better than they've ever been (sorry, everyone who prefers the robustness and alleged reliability of older toolings, but they are!), even with increasing prices are fantastic value for money, and I luvs 'em to bits, I does, but they do need careful handling and some producers seem to keep costs down (unsuccessfully) by skimping on QC at the factories.

 

Example;  Hornby ex-Airfix A30 auto-trailer currently £39 RRP, incorrect body shape at the cab doors, crude underframe detail, very much of it's time, nearly half a century in production.  Compare Bachmann A38 and upcoming Dapol Diagram N, nearly twice the RRP, and the question becomes 'is a model that costs twice as much twice as good'.  I'd say yes, in these cases it is, and have an N on pre-order from Rails discounted to £68; I'd pay that sort of money for a retooled A30 as well!

 

I have no wish to criticise you if you are happy with the more basic approach of older toolings with less discrete detail and single-peice bodyshells, and think of it as a different but valid genre of modelling; people get a lot of fun and satisfaction from it and you can't knock that!  Not for me, though...

Edited November 11, 2023 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I really don't think you can level that charge at any current RTR products.  I can't think of any with flangeless wheels (except 9Fs or others where flangeless wheels are prototypical),

I think your frame of reference may be a little Valleys oriented. All the Hornby product of the Pacific and larger persuasion has a flangeless rear truck wheelset, and Hornby thereby make no effort toward  any provision for a well mounted flanged wheelset, leaving butchers like myself hacking away at the model.

[The Johnster]

25 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I think your frame of reference may be a little Valleys oriented.

 

Guilty as charged, fair cop guv.

 

I had no idea Hornby were still perpetrating this nonsense, as locos of that sort are of little interest to me as models, and thought it was only Railroad models anyway.  On a full-fat loco that'll set you back over £200 in DC format it's disgraceful, and betrays the grip that train-set thinking for setrack curves has on the firm's thinking, which is fine for Railroad/Railroad Plus where you are pitching to a market that will accept that sort of compromise, but less so for the full-fat quality stuff.  Bachmann make pacifics as well, admittedly not the longer-wheelbase LMS beasties, and have proper flanged rear wheelsets/Cartazzis. 

 

I would like to see RTR manufacturers specify larger minimum radii for their models; most of us work to 2' and have been doing so since the 60s.  This is my own minimum and it's 30" on running lines, so I'm admittedly biased, but I would suggest that companies like Accurascale and Rapido are less fixated on setrack-capable models and might lead the way in this respect.  As well as minimising inaccuracies on big locos, it would enable closer coupling and better propelling.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I would like to see RTR manufacturers specify larger minimum radii for their models

The difficulty, as several retailers have told me over the years, is that their customer base is dominated by owners of set track layouts. The solutions therefore have to be on the running models. Better technique is available from HO, it's a matter of willingness to implement and price sensitivity.

 

I too would like to see a couple of brand managements step up and raise the bar on minimum radius in RTR OO, even if only for a few models which can really use it. I tend to hark back to Bachmann's entry as the model on the mechanism side for this. They effectively kicked the traction tyre out of RTR OO in their early probe from 1992, and then upgraded to mechanisms that performed to a standard previously requiring kit building. They remain the class leader for the wide firebox steam model mechanism: the new V2 can take the supplied  flanged wheelset inside the fixed Cartazzi truck, and without any modification the loco is 24" radius capable in this form. That's progress, and more would be welcomne

[The Johnster]

I wonder if Accurascale’s or Rapido’s customer bases are dominated by setrack layout owners in the same way as Hornby’s or Bachmann’s. 

[MarkSG]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I wonder if Accurascale’s or Rapido’s customer bases are dominated by setrack layout owners in the same way as Hornby’s or Bachmann’s. 

 

Probably not to the same extent. But I bet a lot of us use setrack in the fiddle yard, or on the non-scenic section, or on a test track. I know I do. My test oval is setrack. For sections where appearance doesn't matter, it's a lot quicker and simpler than laying flexitrack. 

 

Plus, of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of us have got an unprototypically tight curve somewhere on our flexitrack! Rule 1 applies, particularly when you need to save space. So an equivalent to radius 2 setrack is a good rule of thumb for how tight we can go, given that that's the target for most RTR locos and rolling stock.