Are current RTR models too good for the average modeller?

[Willie Whizz]

I would speculate that if the minimum radius for RTR models was raised to 24 inches, you might well debar anything between 20-30% of modellers from building a working layout (especially a roundly-roundly) more complex than a single track line in the space they have available. 

Large radii are fine if your layout is mainly linear, or if you have a room the size of a standard garage. Many of us have to work in a spare bedroom or modest shed.  The resulting compromises are less than ideal but it’s that or find another hobby. And then, for the manufacturers, find more customers elsewhere. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I really don't know. Good way to begin, but there you go.

Poses the question, I suppose, as to what is an "average modeller"? One who models averagely? 

There are so many facets to this modelling game; stock, scenery, operation, collecting... Are these aspects compatible with what manufacturers are offering?

 

Also it depends on how much baggage one already has. Starting afresh I'd want finer trackwork standards, highly detailed locos/stock, the lot. BUT I've got old Tri-ang locos, Lima engines and the like.

So I have to take all that on board. Do I chuck 'em, or compromise?

I know I've said it before, but for me, the most realistic layouts are those that:

1. Have a consistent standard of modelling. Now that level might be, say, detailed Lima, or it might be straight out of the box Accurascale. Doesn't really matter which, as long as the whole is consistent.

2. Follow the prototype rather than being a model of a model. Too many layouts seems to duplicate errors seen in other layouts. 

3. Have a sense of time and place. This helps to create a real sense of that elusive railway atmosphere. 

So let me end with an example. Many moons ago I bought a secondhand Tri-ang Midland 3F

0-6-0. I detailed it a bit, noticeably the tender to make it look more like the prototypes' Johnson one., and gave it a repaint. Now if I stood this alongside a Bachmann model of the same class, there would be no comparison. But my 3F is unique; I spent time and effort on trying to improve it. It means something to me. Now I'd love to have a Bachmann one too, but I'm not prepared/can't afford to pay what seems to be high secondhand prices to get one. So I'll stick with my 3F as it's more consistent with my standard of modelling.

 

[Porkscratching]

I found some of the Bachmann engines have so many tiny parts sticking out, you very easily break bits off if you handle the damn thing at all... 

[Jeff Smith]

I guess the problems really relate to the long wheelbase steam locos being used on the 6 by 4 or 8 by 5 baseboards.  Let's face it they and long bogie coaches do look ridiculous going round 2' radius curves......  There have been many books written about small 4mm layouts and the majority use small locos and 4 wheel coaches and goods stock.  But at the end of the day it's your railway....

[ess1uk]

I’ve no idea what the underside of a wagon/coach looks like, if it looks right from above/the side then that’s good enough for me.

[PaulRhB]

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

Are current RTR models too good for the average modeller?

Nope, why can’t that be the impetus that gets them slowly improving their other skills?

 

Also people run any level of model it can still conjure up the East Coast mainline or bucolic branch in their head. I think imagination is forgotten sometimes in certain peoples obsession with the current ‘picture’ as opposed to the ‘minds eye’ or future possibilities it looks like to the creator. 
 

Take a track plan, I see the fully finished layout, you just see lines and board edges 😉

 

Why should there be a delineation between levels?, some interested in prototypical operation make do with bare boards and coarse track but have fully functioning point rodding, bells and slip coaches. 
 

The only criteria are in our heads, to some anything goes to others a piece five years out of period is a horror 😁 
On my layouts at a show I prefer to run realistic trains with a bit of float on time period. Currently on the track an 80’s 37 sits next to a 50’s Titfield Thunderbolt. 
 

You’ve got your Da Vinci’s, Constables, Monet’s and Picasso’s. They’re all considered masters but do it in very different ways. 
The rest of us may be dealing with the WHSmiths watercolour set but we’d not say no to our favourite painting amongst our own efforts. If I’d given up when I built this because the Liliput 0-6-0 and Lima 50 were way beyond my building ability I’d never have built a loco let alone twenty odd layouts 

 

Dream of halcyon days, play trains and have fun, if anyone tells you that’s too good for your layout laugh and wink and return to the little world in your head. 

[Jeff Smith]

37 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Nope, why can’t that be the impetus that gets them slowly improving their other skills?

Well it certainly can be if they want to but I'm sure we've all seen mediocre layouts with pristine recent RTR rolling stock.  This goes back to 'just running trains and not too worried about the scenery' and not wanting to weather expensive models.  But, again, it's their railway.......

[PaulRhB]

5 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Well it certainly can be if they want to but I'm sure we've all seen mediocre layouts with pristine recent RTR rolling stock.  This goes back to 'just running trains and not too worried about the scenery' and not wanting to weather expensive models.  But, again, it's their railway.......

I’ve seen some very good loco builders who’ve never built a layout to run them on, just a test track. Their focus solely on the stock and no interest in scenery. Some collectors never attempt a layout so are the models in their display case too good for them?
With a ‘mediocre’ layout in your terms is it mediocre in the owners eyes? 😉 Is it as good as they can do, as good as they can do now but they’re learning or as good as they need to fill in with imagination? I ripped out the viaduct on one layout and redid it twice until it was actually good enough in my eyes but it was a running layout throughout. 
We run a danger in judging others model of putting them in a box with no knowledge of their other skills. They may be brilliant carpenters or electronics whizzes who just don’t have an artistic eye but have bought their dream models and just need to make the connection with friends, online or at a club, who can then help them bring the layout up to what they or others perceive as good. 
I’ve seen displays of Lego trains and near identical to my tinplate stuff dismissed as not proper modelling in others eyes yet those same people may have an exquisite 5” gauge loco or garden railway with sublime stock. 
Just enjoy the models, if it’s not your niche of the hobby don’t write it off as not good enough, they may have a skill you don’t it’s just not on display. 🤷‍♂️

[Jeff Smith]

35 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I’ve seen some very good loco builders who’ve never built a layout to run them on, just a test track. Their focus solely on the stock and no interest in scenery. Some collectors never attempt a layout so are the models in their display case too good for them?

My original question was about RTR not hand built locos - my kit and scratch built locos and coaches also reside in a display case but occasionally venture out on my layout.

 

Collectors can of course display tbem wherever they like or in the original boxes to retain the value......

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

With a ‘mediocre’ layout in your terms is it mediocre in the owners eyes? 😉 Is it as good as they can do, as good as they can do now but they’re learning or as good as they need to fill in with imagination? I ripped out the viaduct on one layout and redid it twice until it was actually good enough in my eyes but it was a running layout throughout. 
We run a danger in judging others model of putting them in a box with no knowledge of their other skills. They may be brilliant carpenters or electronics whizzes who just don’t have an artistic eye but have bought their dream models and just need to make the connection with friends, online or at a club, who can then help them bring the layout up to what they or others perceive as good. 
I’ve seen displays of Lego trains and near identical to my tinplate stuff dismissed as not proper modelling in others eyes yet those same people may have an exquisite 5” gauge loco or garden railway with sublime stock. 
Just enjoy the models, if it’s not your niche of the hobby don’t write it off as not good enough, they may have a skill you don’t it’s just not on display. 🤷‍♂️

My concern in my original question was that some people may be intimidated by the fidelity of current RTR offerings.  Whatever any of us do with our home layouts is generally to suit ourselves, however if venturing out to display at exhibitions a consistent standard is desirable.

[PaulRhB]

4 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

My concern in my original question was that some people may be intimidated by the fidelity of current RTR offerings.  Whatever any of us do with our home layouts is generally to suit ourselves, however if venturing out to display at exhibitions a consistent standard is desirable.

I agree that a superb model may intimidate some not to have a go but I think there’s more risk of that when viewing a layout at a show than being able to buy a model off the shelf. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

6 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

...My concern in my original question was that some people may be intimidated by the fidelity of current RTR offerings...

Not so, based on those I have encountered over the the last near 24 years. When I first had Bachmann's WD 2-8-0 it was shown to a number of folk, and the general reaction to both appearance and performance was 'that's what I have been looking for'; some of them have since gone on to build layouts.

 

And so it has continued, I (unexpectedly) helped a friend operate an exhibited layout on a preservation outfit this year. While lightly adjusting a loco which had failed the previous day and was on the naughty shelf (keeper plate attached slightly cockeyed, worked perfectly when properly located) I was asked had I built that myself; and was able to prove not by showing him the maker's brand name on the underside. Cue surprise, 'I didn't know you could buy a model that good' was the gist of it.

[PMP]

8 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

My concern in my original question was that some people may be intimidated by the fidelity of current RTR offerings.  Whatever any of us do with our home layouts is generally to suit ourselves, however if venturing out to display at exhibitions a consistent standard is desirable.

If that were the case the contemporary high quality products wouldn’t sell. They clearly do, and we see plenty of new releases across the scales, and we’ll see further announcements in the next twelve days. Set track is still the biggest selling type of track by a significant margin. The market doesn’t appear to be bothered.

 

Perhaps you should define what an average modeller is, (I have no idea), and provide some examples of them, then we can see what point you’re trying to make, at the moment it’s unclear to me.

 

What are the consistent standards for an exhibition layout, who determines them, and why?

[AndrueC]

19 hours ago, Porkscratching said:

I found some of the Bachmann engines have so many tiny parts sticking out, you very easily break bits off if you handle the damn thing at all... 

Try handling models from their Farish stable...

😉

 

If you've not had the experience of handling an N scale 4-6-2 with permanently attached tender(*) you have less to complain about. I only have one on my layout purely for nostalgic reasons. There's a lot to be said for sticking to the modern era. Getting the loco on the rails is a lot easier for one thing :)

 

And when you look at the Dapol Class 68 product - wow. They look good. Just remember not to yank the bogeys off to clean the pickups 😧

 

(*) Thankfully the motor for my Queen Elizabeth is in the loco but the electronics are in the tender so you don't ever want to find them separated.

Edited November 13, 2023 by AndrueC

[Steamport Southport]

On 11/11/2023 at 19:57, The Johnster said:

 

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.

 

Erm, you do know there is a flanged wheel set in the box?

 

Why should those of us that can run large locomotives have to have unprototypical pony trucks waving about like a combover in a gale just so a few people can run them around train set track?

 

 

 

 

Jason

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

Try handling models from their Farish stable...

😉

 

If you've not had the experience of handling an N scale 4-6-2 with permanently attached tender(*) you have less to complain about. I only have one on my layout purely for nostalgic reasons. There's a lot to be said for sticking to the modern era. Getting the loco on the rails is a lot easier for one thing :)

 

 

You don't have three class 40s then - so long even the re-railer doesn't always work. 🤣

[jjb1970]

A railer is essential for many of my N models as I have quite a few with faired in bogies.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

Erm, you do know there is a flanged wheel set in the box?

 

Why should those of us that can run large locomotives have to have unprototypical pony trucks waving about like a combover in a gale just so a few people can run them around train set track?

He won't, (because he doesn't buy them) but I do and know that there's a flanged wheelset included; and I also know that all the models I have sampled as supplied can make no practical use of it, even if it is to be operated on the larger radius curves (36" radius or thereabouts) on which a flanged rear truck wheelset is practical, with the fixed Cartazzi truck frame essential to Doncaster's wide firebox locos. (Not making any use of the (admittedly minimal) swinging pony truck action of LMS, SR and BR wide firebox locos is shortsighted IMO.)

 

Hornby simply duck out of a better solution well proven in HO, which has the very same difficulties.

Mount the flanged wheelset in a concealed internal truck, and have the outside frames hinged to push out when the truck swings, with a light spring restoring action, is a method for dealing with prototype fixed structure that constrains movment.

 

On subjects with pony trucks, providing user selectable limitation of the swinging action is simple, and is a 'best of all worlds' solution; supply the model with unrestricted swing for set track, and leave it to those with large layout radii to apply the swing limitation for superior appearance.

 

[NBL]

I've recently finished weathering some locos for my friends US layout.  From £300 Scaletrains to non runner Bachmann that cost a tenner and 50 year old Athearns.  Apart from some pilot MU pipes and firecracker antennae, all are as out of the box. 

 

My friend said that he can hardly tell the difference between a Scaletrains Rivet Counter GP30 model and his cheap Bachmann version, which cost under 20 quid.  Both in the same livery, both weathered, both look the same at exhibitions.

 

Part of the key to this is because his layout is modelled to a consistent standard, it's not overly detailed, it has no twee cameos, it just all looks right.

 

I see many layouts at exhibitions with all the latest detailed stock - mainly locos with ancient mixed era rolling stock and card buildings, with a multitude of cringeworthy cameos.  

 

There are not too many layouts on the circuit where the modelling is consistent across stock, structures and scenics.  The stock doesn't have to be the latest all singing and dancing examples, just carefully and thoughtfully modelled.

[Chris M]

What constitutes a "cringeworthy cameo"?

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

1 minute ago, Chris M said:

What constitutes a "cringeworthy cameo"?

 

 

A, very glossy, bus on a bridge, with no driver or passengers.

Bernard

[Peter Kazmierczak]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

A, very glossy, bus on a bridge, with no driver or passengers.

Bernard

Bernard, I imagine that nobody on RMweb is likely to be daft enough to do that, are they?

[NBL]

1 hour ago, Chris M said:

What constitutes a "cringeworthy cameo"?

 

 

Bus on a bridge

Road crash with attendant emergency vehicles with flashing blues

Wedding party

Fight outside a pub

 

I could go on!

 

However, if that's what the modeller wants to show, then who am I to discourage them.  Each to thier own, I personally find these things very clichéd.

[Clive Mortimore]

The average modeller

"Wow look at the detail, isn't it wonderful, best thing since the last one a bought"

"It won't go round my radius 2 curves, just like the last one I bought"

"I think I will have a blue engine this month as I had a red one last month"

 

We must remember that many who enjoy railway modelling are not members of a scale/gauge society who limit their modelling to July 1910 at Newport Pangnell station and all of it must be scratch or kit built, but people who just like seeing model trains run, they enjoy the finer detail and the gimmicks.

 

As Joe Strummer sang

" Oh, please mister
Just leave me alone
I'm only
Lookin' for fun
Lookin' for fun
F, U, N"

 

On a personal level regarding detail on today's models, some of it is welcomed by me and some of it I feel is a waste of development and manufacturing time. But my view of an individual model can be different to someone else's.

[Jeff Smith]

9 hours ago, PMP said:

Perhaps you should define what an average modeller is, (I have no idea), and provide some examples of them, then we can see what point you’re trying to make, at the moment it’s unclear to me.

Ask Peco, the publishers of Railway Modeller.....

 

How's this for some generalizations - mostly uses OO or N RTR but dabbles in some wagon, coach and even loco kit building or conversion; mostly uses TL couplings or Kadee; mostly uses RTL track; mostly uses solid top baseboards with maybe some below-track features such as a river; can use DC or DCC; mostly uses RTP or kit-built structures; as likely to have a roundy layout as an out-and-back.