Are current RTR models too good for the average modeller?

[Jeff Smith]

10 hours ago, PMP said:

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

Putting aside the retro tinplate, Triang, HD, Trix-Twix layouts which really require authentic structures and accessories, we are looking at layouts that capture the essence of the chosen railway company and/or location.  Also consistently and appropriately applied colouring of track, ballast, scenery, etc.  No bright rusty rails, no undersized or toy-like trees, no inappropriate track configurations, etc.  No one actually determines the standard except perhaps exhibition managers and repeat requests to exhibit.

[PMP]

32 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

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.

I’m not sure there’s any point in asking Peco. To my knowledge they’ve not, and don’t refer to people as average modellers. 

Their strap line above, so often mis quoted by people who haven’t bothered to read it, is average enthusiast. 

 

From your generalisation and using your criteria, these above are typical average layouts, yet you don’t see many like them. With your average designations we should see quite large numbers of layouts like these but we don’t, why not?

[BachelorBoy]

3 minutes ago, PMP said:

I’m not sure there’s any point in asking Peco. To my knowledge they’ve not, and don’t refer to people as average modellers. 

Their strap line above, so often mis quoted by people who haven’t bothered to read it, is average enthusiast. 

 

From your generalisation and using your criteria, these above are typical average layouts, yet you don’t see many like them. With your average designations we should see quite large numbers of layouts like these but we don’t, why not?

 

That doesn't necessarily follow. Average modellers may well read the magazine to be inspired by above-average modelling. 

 

(On good day my modelling may well reach the giddy heights of averageness, but I'm not sure people would pay money for a magazine to see it.)

[PMP]

29 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

, we are looking at layouts that capture the essence of the chosen railway company and/or location.  Also consistently and appropriately applied colouring of track, ballast, scenery, etc.  No bright rusty rails, no undersized or toy-like trees, no inappropriate track configurations, etc.  No one actually determines the standard except perhaps exhibition managers and repeat requests to exhibit.

If an exhibition manager accepts a layout for a show, it by definition is to an appropriate exhibition standard. If a layout doesn’t appeal, walk past.

Of course if one really felt strongly about it you could complain to the show manager that layout X isn’t to a suitable standard. Then they’d know not to invite it again, or not recommend it to other show hosts.

 

[PMP]

6 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

That doesn't necessarily follow. Average modellers may well read the magazine to be inspired by above-average modelling. 

 

(On good day my modelling may well reach the giddy heights of averageness, but I'm not sure people would pay money for a magazine to see it.)

So what is an average modeller? And it doesn’t alter the fact that as far as I’m aware Peco, the publisher of Railway Modeller has not referred to their readers/customers as average modellers. The same goes for the other magazines too, as far as I’m aware. 

[Michael Hodgson]

On 12/11/2023 at 19:55, ess1uk said:

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.

 

I've got a reasonable idea of what should be under a vehicle body, but I do try to keep mine on the rails and only view it from above.

Of course if my track was so badly laid that they were alawys derailing and ending upside down, I might regard  such details as more important.  Brake rodding is all very well, but if made of plastic, it's got to be fragile.

[BachelorBoy]

7 minutes ago, PMP said:

So what is an average modeller? And it doesn’t alter the fact that as far as I’m aware Peco, the publisher of Railway Modeller has not referred to their readers/customers as average modellers. The same goes for the other magazines too, as far as I’m aware. 

[The Johnster]

If one accepts Jeff Smith's suggested definition of an average modeller, I tick all his boxes.  I think I am probably no more than a rather moderately skilled modeller and rely on RTR and RTP items to provide me with models that are to scale and well detailed, and I use tension-lock couplers because my eyesight and hand-steadiness aren't good enough for coupling and uncoupling with scale couplings on an end-to-end BLT layout, but I try to be as realistic as I can, use prototypical stock in proper formations, try to run at scale speeds, and as far as is practical to the 1955 BR rule book.  Comparing myself to such of my fellow modellers whose layouts I've seen at shows or on video, I'm a below average modeller but an above average operator of my layout.

 

I run Cwmdimbath to a real-time working timetable.  This includes withdrawing locos from service every ten working Cwmdimbath days for two Cwmdimbath working days to represent boiler washouts.  Apart from being realistic practice, it gives time for maintenance and cleaning of locos, and helps me keep on top of problems.  There are more ways of achieving realism than by modelling precisely to scale, one needs an holistic approach, and this perhaps makes it easier to reconcile my poorer-than-average modelling of scenery with the RTR paragons that operate realistically on it.

 

My aim is to run a railway, a branch serving a mining village in the Tondu network of branches in the County of Glamorgan, a real railway with the rules, culture, and problems associated with that, only small, semi-imaginary, and 70years ago...  I think I achieve this to a reasonable extent, though do not claim it or my interpretation of it to be perfect!  RTR to the current standard goes a long way to assist my disbelief suspension mechanisms, though!  I certainly achieve it to my satisfaction within my restricted budget and ability, and after six years show no sign of tiring of operating it or modelling it.  It has much work left to do to it, and I doubt that I will run out of modelling during my remaining lifetime.  I wouldn't want it less complex, for that way lies boredom, or more complex, for that way lies frustration.  It works for me but I wouldn't force it on anyone else...

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

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.

I use ready to lay track, tension lock couplings, have solid top baseboard, supporting a roundy layout with a triangle junction leading to a terminus station.  I have fun building kits, converting stock, but I get real enjoyment at scratch building my own locos, coaches,wagons, road vehicles figures, and buildings.  I am I an average modeller? I hope so.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Clive Mortimore

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I use ready to lay track, tension lock couplings, have solid top baseboard, supporting a roundy layout with a triangle junction leading to a terminus station.  I have fun building kits, converting stock, but I get real enjoyment at scratch building my own locos, coaches,wagons, road vehicles figures, and buildings.  I am I an average modeller? I hope so.

I think you probably are and, as I have used all of my criteria at one time or another, so am I.

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, BachelorBoy said:

Apologies for misquoting modellers for enthusiasts - but the key word was 'average'.  I'm also not aware of when that wording was dropped.....

[Jeff Smith]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

From your generalisation and using your criteria, these above are typical average layouts, yet you don’t see many like them. With your average designations we should see quite large numbers of layouts like these but we don’t, why not?

Because a lot of home based layouts never exhibit or feature in magazines.  By the way there is nothing wrong with average layouts and - by definition average as a statistical term generally means the majority, as in the bell curve.

[Chris M]

5 hours ago, PMP said:

If an exhibition manager accepts a layout for a show, it by definition is to an appropriate exhibition standard. If a layout doesn’t appeal, walk past.

Of course if one really felt strongly about it you could complain to the show manager that layout X isn’t to a suitable standard. Then they’d know not to invite it again, or not recommend it to other show hosts.

 

Some small exhibitions have one or two average layouts and far too many less than average layouts. Yes I know exhibition managers can change but I vote with my feet. There are two exhibitions I have paid to visit this year that I will not be going to next year. There is no need for small exhibitions to be poor, I recently went to a £4 entry exhibition and it was delightful. There were no super special layouts but there was a good selection of interesting layouts entertaining both modellers and public.

[jjb1970]

The question of what modellers value more is a recurring one, there's a similar thread in this section of RMWeb concerning Rapido N gauge models, the questions are framed differently but ultimately address the same issue of whether modellers want super-detail or value something else. The answer would be 'it depends'. We all have our own preferences and desires and what is right for one person is not necessarily what others would want. As with any subjective preference it is what it is and the answer is determined by the individual. 

 

For me it varies. I collect HO brass models, for those I value maximum fidelity and detail, but I don't run them, just display them. In N gauge I play trains and run my models and I like the Japanese approach of nailing shape and livery and providing superb running qualities but adding detail where it makes a difference and dispensing with unseen detail and stuff which doesn't affect overall impression.

[Darius43]

On 10/11/2023 at 18:46, Halvarras said:

 

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). 

I did fit the side valances to my Dapol Class 22, but the bloody things kept falling off and vanishing.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[Chris M]

4 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Apologies for misquoting modellers for enthusiasts - but the key word was 'average'.  I'm also not aware of when that wording was dropped.....

It changed to "for every British Railway enthusiast" in January 1994.

[jjb1970]

2 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

I did fit the side valances to my Dapol Class 22, but the bloody things kept falling off and vanishing.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

It was one of those ideas which sounded good given the valances appear to have been regularly left off the real locomotives, but in practice I found it a pain. 

[Chris M]

6 hours ago, PMP said:

I’m not sure there’s any point in asking Peco. To my knowledge they’ve not, and don’t refer to people as average modellers. 

Their strap line above, so often mis quoted by people who haven’t bothered to read it, is average enthusiast. 

 

From your generalisation and using your criteria, these above are typical average layouts, yet you don’t see many like them. With your average designations we should see quite large numbers of layouts like these but we don’t, why not?

Cheslyn Bay, an inspirational layout for me. I was in my 20s at the time and it helped to move me on towards better modelling. It provides an illustration of how a layout can look good even when running Lima locos. Front coupling removed which is good but the stupid lamp not being removed is not so good. I always removed the lamp, dropped in wire brackets and handrails and then did a full repaint on mine. 

[jjb1970]

Some of those old Lima models got the basics very right. The 47 may have been basic and with the rather crude pancake motor but it is still an excellent representation of a class 47 in my opinion and with a little effort can give a superb result.

[Michael Hodgson]

8 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Apologies for misquoting modellers for enthusiasts - but the key word was 'average'.  I'm also not aware of when that wording was dropped.....

Somebody must have decided that it's bad salemanship to call your customers average (and "below average" would have been even worse!)

Flattery is the order of the day for a salesman.  But would "for the above average modeller have worked" any better? 

Do you want to sell your product to only one sector of the potential market?

Would we have felt excluded by our inferiority complexes, or would we have seen it as all marketing hype and bought it anyway?

[Legend]

4 hours ago, Chris M said:

It changed to "for every British Railway enthusiast" in January 1994.

 

I think its changed again , something to do with "heart of the hobby" 

[e30ftw]

Going back to the original question, are modern RTR locos and stock too detailed, or have reached a "peak"

 

i think most people focus their eye and attention on the rolling stock and locomotives, after all this is railway modeling, not modeling static scenes like kit Armour or airplane modelers.

 

Most people will have average scenery with the latest and highly detailed RTR loco, i think this is how most people model. The great layouts tend to have very good scenery mixed with well detailed or customized stock, in my opinion. 

 

There is a temptation to purity spiral, by some people such as, you can not be a "real" modeler if you just plonk a loco out of the box, you haven't scratched built all your buildings. You have not hand built all track to the exact scale, the locos have to be correct to that period and time of the 14th November 1937 in north west coast of Scotland. It has to be 3 link couplings and sprung buffers.

 

You pick and choose where you draw the line, i would say creating a pastiche of a believable period of time and rough place is what most people aim for.

 

Back to the original question after my own ramblings : )

 

Have we reached peak practical detailing in RTR?

 

I would say yes.

 

From an D+E OO gauge modeling perspective.

 

Do we need a more detailed class 37 than the latest Bachmann or Acurascale one? No, is it even possible to make one? we already have some models with the brake chain becoming detached, whats the point in fitting more separate parts if they come off as you handle it. In 10-15-20 years will plastic molding come to a point where a company could successfully develop, market and sell at a profit a new 37 that is significantly better than what we have now ? A leap so significant that people will pay (i would imagine) significant sums of money for it?

 

I would imagine there will be more accurate sound on models in 10 years but will they really be much better?

 

The previous generation class 47,20, are enough for most i would say to get a good representation of the class.

 

Is any one going to bother making a new all new model of

 

87,90,89,20,47,25,37?

 

The models we have or are in development will be very hard to beat and harder to justify new tooling even in 15-20 years i would say.

 

Your opinion may differ. just my 2 pence.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

12 minutes ago, e30ftw said:

Going back to the original question, are modern RTR locos and stock too detailed, or have reached a "peak"

 

 

 

Strictly speaking, only D1 to D10 (aka 44001-44010), although Classes 45 and 46 also often got called peaks.

[BachelorBoy]

23 minutes ago, e30ftw said:

 

 

Have we reached peak practical detailing in RTR?

 

I would say yes.

 

From an D+E OO gauge modeling perspective.

 

Do we need a more detailed class 37 than the latest Bachmann or Acurascale one? No, is it even possible to make one? we already have some models with the brake chain becoming detached, whats the point in fitting more separate parts if they come off as you handle it. In 10-15-20 years will plastic molding come to a point where a company could successfully develop, market and sell at a profit a new 37 that is significantly better than what we have now ? A leap so significant that people will pay (i would imagine) significant sums of money for it?

 

I would imagine there will be more accurate sound on models in 10 years but will they really be much better?

 

 

 

New materials and technologies might make current detailing more robust and resilient.

 

(And might open the way for even finer details).

 

Plastic moulding has developed over seventy or so years, but 3D printing has only been around for a decade or two. Retooling IS expensive. Future RTR might be printed, when the technology improves. 

 

Will sound be more accurate? I certainly think locos will sound better. Accuracy doesn't really matter so much. Perception is all.

 

 

 

[Halvarras]

7 hours ago, Darius43 said:

I did fit the side valances to my Dapol Class 22, but the bloody things kept falling off and vanishing.

 

7 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

It was one of those ideas which sounded good given the valances appear to have been regularly left off the real locomotives, but in practice I found it a pain. 

 

I regard this as one of the worst decisions made by any manufacturer in recent times, and it seemed to me that Dapol were trying to be too clever by half. It just wasn't a good idea. Or at the very least a dubious idea poorly executed. The missing valances mainly affected blue locos as they'd reached an age where corrosion played a part in their disappearance. Most green ones which lasted beyond the 1968/9 first withdrawals managed to retain them (D6309/38 being two which didn't), and the separate valances are pointless on the disc headcode locos.