Wright writes.....

[gr.king]

13 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

It is though. One of the manufacturers has even posted so on this thread!

 

You do know who "McC" is I take it?

 

 

Why do you think a Hornby locomotive from 1980ish that has had hardly any improvements apart from minor ones costs £189.99 RRP

 

https://uk.Hornby.com/products/lms-fowler-4p-2-6-4t-2300-big-four-centenary-collection-era-3-r30271

 

Yet a brand new Hornby A1 costs just a few pounds more?

 

https://uk.Hornby.com/products/lner-class-a1-4-6-2-4478-hermit-big-four-centenary-collection-era-3-r30270

 

It's the way the suppliers work I'm afraid. It's like a restaurant, they have a set price. If you don't want chips with your meal you are still paying the same price.

 

 

Jason

I had already worked out a small range of probable identities for McC thank you.

 

What the manufacturers choose to charge for re-runs of older and more basic models sold alongside the newer ones with gizmos and hidden details is not a reliable indication of the costs genuinely and uniquely attributable to each of those models. They charge what they reckon the typical Joe Soap will pay, cross-subsidising as they see fit. If each product was charged for on a true cost basis, the basic old model would be cheaper, especially if original production tools were in good order and had not be thrown away or surrendered to China, and the new model would also be cheaper than its "fully detailed version, true costs" price if the extra research, development and tooling for the hidden details and "Mr Gadget" features had not been done.

[billbedford]

8 minutes ago, gr.king said:

They charge what they reckon the typical Joe Soap will pay, cross-subsidising as they see fit. If each product was charged for on a true cost basis, the basic old model would be cheaper, 

 

This doesn't seem right. They charge what they think the majority of customers expect to pay. Underpricing can be as bad for sales as over-pricing. 

[Clive Mortimore]

I find the topic of Super Detailing  (Over Detailing ?) interesting and funny at the same time. It is wonderful that the detail on recent RTR stuff is far better than we would have expected a few years ago but at times it does seem to be a race to see which manufacturer can bung on stuff that I can't see when the loco, wagon, coach etc is whizzing around the layout.

 

I have come to my own personal conclusion, if the RTR boys want to out do each other with under gubbins and interior detail I can't see when the train is 20 feet way from me and it is something I want, I might buy it. If it is an "upgrade" on what I can pick up cheaply secondhand and zooming past me looks OK, I might buy it. And if in the mood and want to do some modelling which I know will not match today's RTR stuff but is more fun to do, I might buy the bits to make it.  I have a choice.

 

Now do I need a six wheeled pre grouping van from a company south of the Thames? Sorry Rapido, it looks very nice but it isn't part of my present day modelling plans.

[Tony Wright]

Having completed the DJH A3 the other day, I thought I'd better get on and complete the same firm's A1 I'd started...........

 

 

 

A typical LB 'layout loco'. 

 

Regarding pricing, with all the current discussions, I picked up this kit at the York Show at Easter for £100.00. It included all the wheels. The drive is a second-hand Portescap I obtained for £50.00 - it's an old one, so is quiet. Is £150.00 less than one might expect to pay for a new Bachmann A1? If so, it shows what can be obtained if one searches carefully enough. The A1 kit was second-hand, but untouched, so they are out there.

 

She'll end up as ABERDONIAN, once Geoff Haynes has painted her. She'll then take her place running on Little Bytham along with A1s 60114/116/117/118/119/120/121/125/128/129/130/136/146/147/149/155/156 and 60157 - 19 (with her), and 60126/60134 to build.

 

Enough A1s? There are more, but these I saw often, not to mention the others! Spotting at Retford (from my surviving notes and memory), A1s were the most common Pacific to be seen, especially on the Leeds trains, most of which stopped. 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[cctransuk]

On 07/06/2023 at 20:57, cctransuk said:

 

Nobody will ever convince me that the cost of the totally pointless tool-making , assembly and painting time that this invisible detailing incurs is 'negligible'.

 

It's all about one-up-manship ; our model has more detail than your model. Meanwhile, model prices go through the ceiling!

 

One day, the Emperor's new clothes will be seen for what they are; and a canny newcomer will produce models that have just as much detail as can be seen when on the track. The prices may be something of a revelation!

 

CJI.

 

I am NOT drawing any unwarranted conclusions from the response to my recent postings on the subject of invisible detail - I will merely observe that it would appear that I am not alone in my views.

 

Regardless of the ultimate price to the consumer, producers may well be able to save themselves some (negligible??) production costs by omitting that which cannot be seen, except by forcibly removing the roof - and thereby incurring the risk of damage.

 

CJI.

[micklner]

28 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I am NOT drawing any unwarranted conclusions from the response to my recent postings on the subject of invisible detail - I will merely observe that it would appear that I am not alone in my views.

 

Regardless of the ultimate price to the consumer, producers may well be able to save themselves some (negligible??) production costs by omitting that which cannot be seen, except by forcibly removing the roof - and thereby incurring the risk of damage.

 

CJI.

 

 

If you want it very very simple buy it . If you dont  then its so very simple ignore .

 

No idea why "some" people get so excited over a model and then keep repeating the same old moans. On here and elewhere.

 

Ad Naseum and very very boring to keep reading.

[St Enodoc]

6 minutes ago, micklner said:

 

 

If you want it very very simple buy it . If you dont  then its so very simple ignore .

 

No idea why "some" people get so excited over a model and then keep repeating the same old moans. On here and elewhere.

 

Ad Naseum and very very boring to keep reading.

It's equally boring when some folk (not you) keep telling us we should buy all the new stuff because it's so much better than what we already have.

[cctransuk]

55 minutes ago, micklner said:

 

 

If you want it very very simple buy it . If you dont  then its so very simple ignore .

 

No idea why "some" people get so excited over a model and then keep repeating the same old moans. On here and elewhere.

 

Ad Naseum and very very boring to keep reading.

 

.... and to keep reading the same responses.

 

CJI.

[Tony Wright]

I don't find the current discussions boring at all. They just seem to me to be frank exchanges of views, and I think (or at least I hope) I can see all sides. 

 

One could argue that prices have never been higher (though no one is forcing anyone to buy items), but, on the other hand, standards have never been higher.

 

I say again, as far as I'm concerned, much of what's currently produced RTR is of little use to me, though I do find it interesting. Regarding its being of little use, I'm one of those merry modellers who continues to make things (even though what I make is probably inferior), rather than being RTR-reliant.

 

Please keep the comments coming.......

[Tony Wright]

Speaking of boring, I wonder whether some think just that as I keep on posting images of locos I'm building/just built?

 

Anyway, before any of them go anywhere near a paint shop, they're thoroughly road-tested...........

 

 

 

 

To ensure they pass the test of being truly 'layout locos', capable of taking far heavier loads than most RTR locos would be expected to do.

 

This trio will be off to Geoff Haynes to be painted before long. He has two almost ready for me to collect, so, please, watch this space..............

 

Not only that, Ian Rathbone has two of mine for painting as well!

 

 

[gr.king]

5 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

This doesn't seem right. They charge what they think the majority of customers expect to pay. Underpricing can be as bad for sales as over-pricing. 

That's certainly another factor in commercial thinking Bill.  I think the key point is that the pricing isn't done on the same mathematical basis of "true cost plus X" or "true cost times Y" for all items across the range, hence sales of some items are in effect subsidising the production of others, so that relative prices are not reliable indicators of relative manufacturing costs.

[Tony Wright]

The video of the MR/M&GNR system of Little Bytham in action has now been fully-edited, and will be appearing soon on WOR and Youtube. 

 

These are some stills from that presentation.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[polybear]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of boring, I wonder whether some think just that as I keep on posting images of locos I'm building/just built?

 

Hi Tony,

Not at all; I (and I suspect others) would love to see close-up detail shots with words regarding techniques, tricks of the trade, things to do (and not to do) if possible?

Kind Regards,

Brian

[westernviscount]

Many model a period, loco or place that they are nostalgic for, having grown up or had significant memories of. 

 

The discussion here has made me think on a few things and I realise My modelling "approach" is nostalgic in it's own right. I am trying methods and practices I admired when a child but did not have the ability to engage in. 

 

Above is an airfix 14xx I am working on. With the addition of finer handrails, a couple of white metal bits and a respray,  I have managed singlehandedly to drag a late 1970s rtr model into...well, the mid to late 1980s!:-) However, this is the modelling I remember admiring at exhibitions and watching my Dad do and now I can, I also want to do it. Hence why most rtr stuff now is of no interest to me because I cant afford it (working, with young family) and I like tinkering. 

 

Is my approach superior to buying the lastest RTR? Well, yes but only to me and those who might admire my work or feel equally nostalgic for a modelling era. 

 

One extra thought to my ramble,  I often wonder why I prefer to see spratt and winkle couplings to tension lock (auto uncoupling aside). They are almost as obtrusive! I think I just like to see "the artist's hand". I like to think of another human tinkering away also. There is a sense of shared values perhaps.  I "register" the standards of a shiny rtr model, but I "admire" and am "motivated" by other's bespoke modelling. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by westernviscount

[cctransuk]

22 minutes ago, westernviscount said:

I "register" the standards of a shiny rtr model, but I "admire" and am "motivated" by other's bespoke modelling. 

 

I completely agree, and my current projects illustrate this. In total, I have four BR 4MT 2-6-0s on my stockist.

 

One is a straightforward Bachman model; with a touch of weathering.

 

The second is an ancient Kitmaster kit that had a free-running Tri-ang chassis and whitemetal tender drive, now being replaced by a Kemilway chassis and a GML large tender.

 

The third is similar, being an Airfix kit which will run on another Kemilway chassis.

 

The fourth will be a GML body on a third Kemilway chassis.

 

Now why bother with all this kit construction, when the Bachman model is excellent?

 

Because it is challenging, and the finished models will provide far more satisfaction than simply unboxing RTR models.

 

Cost does not enter the equation - the modelling content is all!

 

CJI.

[41516]

Related to the thread returning to detail vs cost and buying vs building, in his thread, @SteveyDee68 had posed the question of 'What can be done with the Hornby long wheelbase van?' which has plagued train sets since the 1970s and is generally seen as unredeemable junk.

 

As a bit of a low-cost challenge, I thought I'd have a go at chopping one up and seeing what could be made out of one, ideally with nothing bought in extra. I did have to use a few kit spares  (brakes/brake levers, springs/axleboxes),  but then these were only necessary as I chose to cut down the original air-braked chassis rather than replacing it with something more suitable from the start.

 

I ended up creating a plausible gunpowder van. I didn't bother with the hundreds of rivet/bolt heads!

 

 

 

Here is the result, painted to resemble internal user wagons at ROF Glascoed, as photographed by Paul Bartlett.

 

100% accurate to any particular prototype? No.  As good as current RTR? No.   'Layout wagon'? - I think it could sneek into a small layout without betraying where it came from quite happily. 

 

Ultimately, it cost me nothing but time and was an enjoyable diversion from the norm, making something I really don't have a use for!

[Bernard Lamb]

2 hours ago, gr.king said:

That's certainly another factor in commercial thinking Bill.  I think the key point is that the pricing isn't done on the same mathematical basis of "true cost plus X" or "true cost times Y" for all items across the range, hence sales of some items are in effect subsidising the production of others, so that relative prices are not reliable indicators of relative manufacturing costs.

One product is not subsidising another. Both are being sold at a figure derived from what the market will stand and what the customer expects to pay. In any well run business price and cost have no direct relationship. There is no need for the vast majority of employees to ever know the cost of any product. As long as the sales people are instructed to push certain products all will be well. With a factor of X6 between the highest and lowest mark ups a couple of sales of a certain product could make a huge difference to the bottom line when I was working.

Bernard

[Chamby]

With regard to the cost of RTR products and their level of detail:  Three observations:  

 

Firstly, more established companies have often accumulated more ‘baggage’ over time that adds to their overheads... in-house functions such as finance, marketing and HR, stuff like premises, utilities and consumables all create a fixed cost burden to the company and whilst these are not a cost directly associated with the tooling of an individual product, they still need to be recovered from sales.  Newer companies will be ‘leaner and meaner’ in comparison, carrying a much lower overhead, so are able to turn a profit with lower costs.  They can spend more on tooling the details, because they spend less on other costs.  The likes of Accurascale will no doubt encounter this challenge as they continue to grow and their corporate waistline expands into middle age.

 

Secondly, If you are looking from a normal viewing distance watching a model train run by, you tend not to notice the detail, your appreciation is of the broader picture and higher levels of detail are simply overlooked.  In this scenario, the concept of ‘layout’ loco’s and stock is sound.  However when stood side by side in a siding, or on a slow moving shunting layout, ones eye will linger on the detail and the difference becomes immediately obvious.  So your point of view regarding the worth of added detail will depend very much on the nature of your model railway.

 

Thirdly, there is an optimum level of detail, and a note of caution to those manufacturers lauding the highest levels of detail, and that relates to robustness.  Bits falling off have become more commonplace as the bag of separately applied parts has got bigger, even factory applied detail parts can fall off easily, for example the bogie guard irons of the otherwise superb Accurascale Deltic (which is still my favourite RTR model of all time).   A higher level of detail is pointless if it ends up not being there at all.  Delicate details are great in a display cabinet of course, but not so clever when the product is being regularly handled on a layout.

 

So a vote from me for having the maximum level of detail that can be achieved without compromising the robustness of the product under reasonable everyday handling!

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

As for your Deltic...............

 

 

The finest model example of this great class I've ever seen (weathering by Geoff Haynes), with incredible performance to boot! So what if this scene is anomalous by five years?

 

It's interesting when visitors come, the most-frequently requested loco to run is your Deltic!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

It sounds fantastic as well! It takes me back to my 10 year old self on the end of FP with the earth trembling. Magnificent! If that’s doesn’t convince you of the benefits of DCC sound, nothing will.

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

33 minutes ago, Chamby said:

With regard to the cost of RTR products and their level of detail:  Three observations:  

 

Firstly, more established companies have often accumulated more ‘baggage’ over time that adds to their overheads... in-house functions such as finance, marketing and HR, stuff like premises, utilities and consumables all create a fixed cost burden to the company and whilst these are not a cost directly associated with the tooling of an individual product, they still need to be recovered from sales.  Newer companies will be ‘leaner and meaner’ in comparison, carrying a much lower overhead, so are able to turn a profit with lower costs.  They can spend more on tooling the details, because they spend less on other costs.  The likes of Accurascale will no doubt encounter this challenge as they continue to grow and their corporate waistline expands into middle age.

 

Secondly, If you are looking from a normal viewing distance watching a model train run by, you tend not to notice the detail, your appreciation is of the broader picture and higher levels of detail are simply overlooked.  In this scenario, the concept of ‘layout’ loco’s and stock is sound.  However when stood side by side in a siding, or on a slow moving shunting layout, ones eye will linger on the detail and the difference becomes immediately obvious.  So your point of view regarding the worth of added detail will depend very much on the nature of your model railway.

 

Thirdly, there is an optimum level of detail, and a note of caution to those manufacturers lauding the highest levels of detail, and that relates to robustness.  Bits falling off have become more commonplace as the bag of separately applied parts has got bigger, even factory applied detail parts can fall off easily, for example the bogie guard irons of the otherwise superb Accurascale Deltic (which is still my favourite RTR model of all time).   A higher level of detail is pointless if it ends up not being there at all.  Delicate details are great in a display cabinet of course, but not so clever when the product is being regularly handled on a layout.

 

So a vote from me for having the maximum level of detail that can be achieved without compromising the robustness of the product under reasonable everyday handling!

 

 

It’s competition which brings the price down more than anything. I speak as someone who is mainly buying O gauge at the moment (although I did bag an Accurascale Deltic). Heljan O gauge diesels are getting very pricy and we desperately need the competition that is now very prevalent in OO gauge. Thankfully, the price seems to drop after six months when the ‘small shop cartel’ finishes, so I’m now able to afford a second class 27. Dapol stuff is much more reasonably priced, but they have yet to venture into larger locos.

 

Andy

 

[Barry Ten]

Here's a recent loco which I acquired in finished form. It's from the same large collection of kit-built locos that included the Mike Edge-built G&SWR 4-6-0 I showed a while back.

 

 

 

I don't know the builder or painter of this Nu-Cast LSWR Jubilee but it's been finished to a very high standard indeed and runs beautifully. It's got tender pickup in addition to the drivers.

 

I've always thought these were exceptionally handsome locos, so I'm delighted to have acquired one. It was a very reasonable price too.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

It sounds fantastic as well! It takes me back to my 10 year old self on the end of FP with the earth trembling. Magnificent! If that’s doesn’t convince you of the benefits of DCC sound, nothing will.

 

Andy

Good evening Andy, 

 

It sounds impressive without DCC sound as well, though I concede that Napier roar is not there. Can it sound like a Deltic without DCC? By that I mean, will any speakers only work on DCC? 

 

I was 15 when I saw my first Deltic - when they were brand new, and no locomotive has ever impressed me as much as those 22 giants.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

With regard to the cost of RTR products and their level of detail:  Three observations:  

 

Firstly, more established companies have often accumulated more ‘baggage’ over time that adds to their overheads... in-house functions such as finance, marketing and HR, stuff like premises, utilities and consumables all create a fixed cost burden to the company and whilst these are not a cost directly associated with the tooling of an individual product, they still need to be recovered from sales.  Newer companies will be ‘leaner and meaner’ in comparison, carrying a much lower overhead, so are able to turn a profit with lower costs.  They can spend more on tooling the details, because they spend less on other costs.  The likes of Accurascale will no doubt encounter this challenge as they continue to grow and their corporate waistline expands into middle age.

 

Secondly, If you are looking from a normal viewing distance watching a model train run by, you tend not to notice the detail, your appreciation is of the broader picture and higher levels of detail are simply overlooked.  In this scenario, the concept of ‘layout’ loco’s and stock is sound.  However when stood side by side in a siding, or on a slow moving shunting layout, ones eye will linger on the detail and the difference becomes immediately obvious.  So your point of view regarding the worth of added detail will depend very much on the nature of your model railway.

 

Thirdly, there is an optimum level of detail, and a note of caution to those manufacturers lauding the highest levels of detail, and that relates to robustness.  Bits falling off have become more commonplace as the bag of separately applied parts has got bigger, even factory applied detail parts can fall off easily, for example the bogie guard irons of the otherwise superb Accurascale Deltic (which is still my favourite RTR model of all time).   A higher level of detail is pointless if it ends up not being there at all.  Delicate details are great in a display cabinet of course, but not so clever when the product is being regularly handled on a layout.

 

So a vote from me for having the maximum level of detail that can be achieved without compromising the robustness of the product under reasonable everyday handling!

 

 

Good observations Phil,

 

Regarding bits falling off new models, I always unpack any of the latest products I have to review over my photographic table now. Almost without exception, particularly with regard to locos, something will ping into view, or, what's worse, ping off the table into oblivion. 

 

As for 'layout locos' I build - Geoff Haynes praises me when he 'scrubs' my models prior to their being painted because nothing falls off. But then, just about everything is soldered in place. RTR doesn't have that 'luxury'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[westernviscount]

Can I ask any in the know if etch primer is ok to use on both metal and plastic please? 

 

I am moving onto my next 14xx and also it's companion, a br (w) auto trailer coutesy of wizard. 

 

 

[Northmoor]

21 hours ago, MikeCW said:

But detail which is invisible (Rice’s “bells and whistles”?) when the wagon or van trundles by doesn’t figure in the three questions above and will have no influence on my decision whether or not to buy.

It's funny, many years ago my sister and I had a couple of Hornby Fine Fish and Birds Eye Fish Fingers vans. We cut up cardboard into fish shapes and little rectangles and filled the wagons, before putting the roofs back on so you couldn't see the "detailing" anyway.  I don't remember questioning whether the invisible detailing was worthwhile but I was only about six at the time.