Modern Models = Lack of Detail?

[Sir TophamHatt]

Are moden models lacking in detail or do the real things just have less "things" on them?

 

I am thinking along the lines of the GWR 800s and S-Stock - both nice models but look like they're lacking in a lot of detail.  I appreciate newly tooled models, like Accurascale's 92 are very finely detailed, but the real thing is pretty old.

 

So was just thinking whether it's because the manufacturers didn't want to make something too detailed or whether the real thing just isn't, so the model is quite accurate.

[The Johnster]

I was about to get on my soap box to you about this, Sir Topham, but luckily I read your post before making an idiot, by which I mean even more of an idiot than usual, of myself.  You were about to be taken seriously to task for saying that modern RTR is poorly detailed, but of course you meant that models of modern prototypes are perhaps poorly detailed, and you may have a point.  I was watching a GWR 800 running past the back of Aldi's on Newport Road near me earlier today and my eye was caught by the coiled wires between the cantrails of each coach on each side swinging merrily in the breeze; I'd be amazed if Hornby include these, and they are not the easiest of things I imagine to retrofit, but they are quite prominent.  Haven't a clue what they're for or why they take this interesting form.

 

Modern prototypes are deceptively difficult to model in detail; the 800 for instance is a fairly smooth and simple basic shape but there is a lot of very intricate stuff going on on the roofs and between the coach ends.  I remember many years ago reading a comment in the letters pages of the old Model Railway Constructor to the dismissive effect that modelling diesels was as easy as a coach, as they are all shaped like a common loaf of bread, and thinking to myself something along the lines of 'yeah, right, mate; i've a pretty good idea how much notice I'll take of you in future', callow yoof that I was, no respect for my elders and betters...  Perhaps 55 years later Comet coach kits are about my limit!

 

I'm no expert on this, BTW, but I'm sure someone of greater erudition and perspicacity will be along to help us in a short while.  I reckon as a generalisation though that RTR of modern prototypes is probably pretty good, especially in terms of bogie detail, relief on grilles and openings, etc.  Very small, fine, and highly delicate detail such as the 800's curly wires between the vehicles might be another matter.

Edited July 20, 2019 by The Johnster

[jpendle]

One school of thought is that modern models are TOO detailed and hence very expensive.

One example in N Gauge that continually comes up on forums is how good Union Mills steam loco models are compared to Dapol and Farish. "UM have little detail and never attempt to do outside pistons, but they are built like tanks and have tremendous haulage capacity, they are also relatively low cost, Farish & Dapol on the other hand have too many fiddly bits which can break and can't pull the skin off a rice pudding."

I'm not aware of a OO comparison but I'd rather have detail and accuracy rather than compromise. (BTW I do N Gauge diesels and electrics)

 

John P

[phil-b259]

59 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I was watching a GWR 800 running past the back of Aldi's on Newport Road near me earlier today and my eye was caught by the coiled wires between the cantrails of each coach on each side swinging merrily in the breeze; I'd be amazed if Hornby include these, and they are not the easiest of things I imagine to retrofit, but they are quite prominent.  Haven't a clue what they're for or why they take this interesting form.

 

 

The 'curly wires' are the 25KV feed that runs along the roof from the pantograph linking all vehicles in the set (remember the 800s have 'distributed traction setup as opposed to a single vehicle providing traction for the whole set).

 

The French TGVs have had similar appendages from the off, as, unlike the British safety authorities, they could see there was zero 'risk to the public' from doing so and two power cars were required to provide enough power to cope with the steep gradients and 150mph+ running on the LGV routes

 

This is a major part of the reason the BR designed ATP had its power cars in the middle of the train with no public access between each half - two power cars were needed to cope with the steeply graded WCML and having them next to each other allowed them both to be linked to a single pantograph via a 25KV inter vehicle cable while keeping the British H&S brigade happy. The alternative would have required the use of two pantographs on the two power cars at each end - and as has been well documented in these forums, because of HM Treasury restrictions, British BRs lightweight OLE equipment has trouble coping with high speed, double pantographed trains.

 

The first traction to operate in the UK with a 25KV link along the entire unit was the Pendalino - Virgin having finally managed to convince the British H&S brigade that such an installation was perfectly safe, thus paving the way for the Siemens Valero units ordered by Eurostar and now the IET.

 

 

[PatB]

Presumably the designers of the Pendo were able to point to a distinct lack of flash fried French people as supporting evidence for their case. 

[grahame]

8 hours ago, jpendle said:

One example in N Gauge that continually comes up on forums is how good Union Mills steam loco models are compared to Dapol and Farish. "UM have little detail and never attempt to do outside pistons, but they are built like tanks and have tremendous haulage capacity, they are also relatively low cost, Farish & Dapol on the other hand have too many fiddly bits which can break and can't pull the skin off a rice pudding."

 

The issue of 'missing' details on UM models can be resolved by a determined modeller adding them, but the problem of inconsistent scale (often over-height and with undersized wheels - particularly the tenders) will remain. And the big issue with them is the very limited range. Limited by including - (1) only steam outline, (2) only tender locos and (3) only inside cylinder types and with no lined livery options. That means there are no 'modern era' products which is what I understood this thread was about.

 

G

[grahame]

21 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Are moden models lacking in detail or do the real things just have less "things" on them?

 

 

There are probably a lot less 'things' on the outside of modern stock as they are designed to be smooth to reduce co-efficient drag (to be more efficient) and don't need such encumbrances as spaghetti hanging off the wheels, reversing levers on the outside and funnels. Even whistles/horns are now tucked away out of sight or behind panels/grilles. I think any perceived lack of detail on modern models is a reflection of this and in general where there are details to include it is finely and neatly represented. I'm not so sure (or convinced) that details are deliberately left off on account of the age of the prototype.

 

G 

Edited July 21, 2019 by grahame
damn spellchucker

[BernardTPM]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I was watching a GWR 800 running past the back of Aldi's on Newport Road near me earlier today and my eye was caught by the coiled wires between the cantrails of each coach on each side swinging merrily in the breeze; I'd be amazed if Hornby include these, and they are not the easiest of things I imagine to retrofit, but they are quite prominent.

At least three problems there. Firstly they would probably be too fine to mould, though they could probably be formed from fine, malleable wire, like springs. Secondly they would need to locate without being damaged when the individual coaches were put together in a train. Thirdly, to look realistic swinging in the breeze they would have to work to scaled laws of physics and ignore the real world they are out of scale with (nanobots built into the wire?).

[The Johnster]

Which is why I'd be amazed if Hornby provided them; you'd have to produce them in a form robust enough to handle, expect the customer to attach/detach every time he/she made the train up, potentially 2x 5-car sets, and still look fine scale enough to be worth bothering with.  But this is, I think, exactly the sort of thing that goes to the root of Sir Topham's point.  On a steam loco, and arguably on a 'heritage' diesel or electric, even the small details are in the proper Victorian engineering tradition of robustness, and pretty chunky.  What us traditional modellers think of as fine detail is stuff (like smokebox darts, door handles, or brake rigging) which is separate and not part of the body or bogie moulding.  I come from an era when separate handrails were considered cutting edge!

 

That sort of thing on modern trains is often much smaller and finer, and hence more vulnerable to handling mistakes on models, not to mention that providing it as separate detail drives the costs through the roof.  You can, of course, add it if you are a determined modeller, but you have to be a good bit more determined than we were back in the day.  I highlighted the 800's curly wires as an example; a massive modelling challenge to provide at all, as they have to cope with the train running around (usually unfeasibly sharp in scale terms) curves, never mind getting them to 'hang' right. 

 

I'd never have guessed they carried the main 25kv supply, though, this being of course an advantage of AC!  Nanobots or trained bio-nanotech in the wire is definitely the way to go!!!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎20‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 11:48, Sir TophamHatt said:

Are modern models lacking in detail or do the real things just have less "things" on them?

 

I am thinking along the lines of the GWR 800s and S-Stock - both nice models but look like they're lacking in a lot of detail.  I appreciate newly tooled models, like Accurascale's 92 are very finely detailed, but the real thing is pretty old...

What about Dapol's recent class 68 introduction then? And Accuracale's mk5s are going to be of relatively newly introduced stock.

 

What I can see as a problem area are multiple units and large fixed formation passenger trains. No escaping the reality that if made to best current standard and there are 3, 4, 5, more, vehicles that really have to be sold as a complete set; since the price will increase directly proportionate to the number of vehicles the market for such an item will diminish. I could well see a manufacturer deciding on cost containment by producing the model to a more basic standard, and then on the basis of achieved sales assessing whether there is enough of a market to justify going for a  best current standard version.

 

 

[Legend]

Not sure . The Dapol 68 is very detailed and has all that fine print .i still rate this as the best current scene diesel.  I think it’s certainly true modern liveries are more complex 

[jpendle]

8 hours ago, grahame said:

 

The issue of 'missing' details on UM models can be resolved by a determined modeller adding them, but the problem of inconsistent scale (often over-height and with undersized wheels - particularly the tenders) will remain. And the big issue with them is the very limited range. Limited by including - (1) only steam outline, (2) only tender locos and (3) only inside cylinder types and with no lined livery options. That means there are no 'modern era' products which is what I understood this thread was about.

 

G

Ah!

 

I misunderstood the use of 'modern'. I took it to be newly designed models, rather than models of modern protoypes.

 

So as others have said, modern protoypes have less bits hanging off them that need to be modelled, one notable exception being buffer beam and front end details.

 

A very striking, but not quite so modern prototype example is that of air conditioned BR MK2 and MK3 carriages. Lots of stuff visible underneath the MK2's, next to nothing visible on the MK3's except the valances (is that the correct term?).

 

Regards,

 

John P

[hmrspaul]

26 minutes ago, Legend said:

Not sure . The Dapol 68 is very detailed and has all that fine print .i still rate this as the best current scene diesel.  I think it’s certainly true modern liveries are more complex 

I'm pleased to hear this as the 68 was my immediate thought. Seeing them, and the 88s, standing at York my thoughts were on the complexity of everything going on underneath is incredible, and the bodies themselves with see through grills etc - not to fail to mention the very difficult profile at the cab ends. And then there is the spectacular finish - no quick spray of Halfords black to reproduce their livery!

 

How do they lack detail?

 

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/class68tpe

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/class68

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/class88

 

And modern rolling stock is very complex compared to the simple stock of 60 years ago.

 

Paul Bartlett

Edited July 21, 2019 by hmrspaul

[The Johnster]

Indeed it is Paul, with all sorts of electrical, door operating, communication, internet connectivity, pa, heating, and air conditioning systems hardly dreamed of when mk1s were cutting edge.  But much of this complexity is concealed behind panelling or bodywork, or by skirts beneath, in the interests of streamlining.  What does emerge from the all-encompassing bodyshell is very small and finely detailed.

[tomparryharry]

Production of modern stock (modern anything, actually) has changed immensely over the past 3 decades. Technicians are no longer taught to repair; the emphasis is now 'fault find'. The concept is to narrow down the fault, and change only that fault to return the asset to working order. Everything is designed to be get-atable to keep down time to a minimum. The skills base goes down , but conversely, asset availability goes up, Models of current railway stock will faithfully re-create whatever is running at the moment, so be prepared for a 1:76 version of a Maglev....

 

We've gone from Triang Princess Elizabeth to I-phone in the last decades, but hey! that's progress....

 

 

[Zomboid]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

when mk1s were cutting edge

They were old hat when they were introduced.

 

Looking at relatively new DC trains such as electrostars and networkers, there really isn't that much fine detail that would need modelling, aside from the underframes. (Which just makes the lack of an RTR electrostar even more glaring...).

[Sir TophamHatt]

On 21 July 2019 at 00:16, The Johnster said:

I was about to get on my soap box to you about this, Sir Topham, but luckily I read your post before making an idiot, by which I mean even more of an idiot than usual, of myself.  You were about to be taken seriously to task for saying that modern RTR is poorly detailed, but of course you meant that models of modern prototypes are perhaps poorly detailed, and you may have a point.

Ha ha.

I do have trouble expressing what I mean in words sometimes  

More just a question for discussion to broaden my thinking  

[njee20]

The Bachmann 90 came under fire from some quarters for lacking in detail, leading to a discussion about whether the fidelity wasn't there, or the detail on the prototype wasn't. We spend a lot of time looking at the roofs of models, and with CADs of 92s currently being bandied about from Accurascale and (previously) DJM highlighting a wealth of detail, the 90 looks rather sparse in comparison.

 

As previously said, a better understanding of aerodynamics now means that on things where that's particularly important everything tends to smoother, bodyside steps fold away, and underframe equipment is hidden within boxes. There remain plenty of exceptions though, as have already been mentioned. So, yeah, sometimes, maybe.

 

 

 

[GeoffAlan]

Not model railways, but in a wargames magazine some 20 yrs ago a letter spoke of a wife's reaction to an beautiful and highly detailed group of figures painted over many weeks for a competition. 

 

Figures had eyes of different colours great expression and the details of armour, weapons and shields were all picked out to perfection.

 

The guy called his wife into the room to admire his skill, and, from 6 feet away she said:-  'They look great from here!'

 

I think some of today's models in N gauge are beautiful to look at, but like jpendle says sometimes a more basic, but totally bomb proof Union Mills loco does the job much better and at least from a couple of feet away, looks just as good as a better detailed, somewhat fragile, and massively under-powered model that costs twice the price.

 

 

[njee20]

Lack of haulage is definitely a pain, particularly in N gauge, where long trains are achievable in a comparatively modest space. To go back to the previously mentioned 68 - I've had several, and the haulage is really poor, which is disappointing, as they do look (and sound) great! I'm not sure that you need trade detail for power though, ultimately you need to add more weight. I know UM achieve this with a metal body, but I'm not sure I see 100% correlation between detail and power.

[Zomboid]

I'm not sure about N, but the die cast chassis in my American HO diesels give plenty of pulling power. It only took 2 of them to shift a train of at least 40 really quite heavy freight cars (when I hand pushed the train the rolling resistance was very noticeable). They'd probably have done even better if the motors/ chips were matched... The 4 locos that brought the train in were capable of a bit more speed, as you'd probably expect...

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, njee20 said:

As previously said, a better understanding of aerodynamics now means that on things where that's particularly important everything tends to smoother, bodyside steps fold away, and underframe equipment is hidden within boxes.

Roofs have become more cluttered and less smooth as can be seen in this comparison of IC125, IC225 and Class 800. APT had just about the smoothest profile of all, top, bottom and sides.

[njee20]

4 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I'm not sure about N, but the die cast chassis in my American HO diesels give plenty of pulling power. It only took 2 of them to shift a train of at least 40 really quite heavy freight cars (when I hand pushed the train the rolling resistance was very noticeable). They'd probably have done even better if the motors/ chips were matched... The 4 locos that brought the train in were capable of a bit more speed, as you'd probably expect...

 

Yes, (more) metal chassis would make a big difference, but that's rather my point, that needn't come at the expense of body detail. I think an issue is competing priorities - adding space for a speaker means taking out a chunk of weight. Adding DCC sockets likewise. US stuff tends to be better as it's all NMRA spec, plus multiple locos is more prototypical than the UK, so you can just add MORE POWER!

 

2 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Roofs have become more cluttered and less smooth as can be seen in this comparison of IC125, IC225 and Class 800. APT had just about the smoothest profile of all, top, bottom and sides.

 

I'm prepared to be wrong, but I'll wager the 800 performs better in a wind tunnel than an APT.

[BernardTPM]

Perhaps, though that still doesn't make the roof any smoother.

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

They were old hat when they were introduced.

Bit harsh, Z.  They were a combination of the best and most recent UK practice, Bulleid and Thompson, and very much more advanced in structural rigidity and crash resistance compared to concurrent Hawksworth and Stanier designs.  Some US stock was better, airconditioned and aluminium bodied, but still very heavy and in most cases steam heated.  I'd agree that the suburbans and their use as the basis for emu and dmu stock when the LMS had already built sliding door stock and the LNER had commissioned it for the Shenfields was probably a retrograde step, but I don't think anything in Europe in the 50s was superior to them.  

 

BR were pretty good at main line coach design throughout their existence though, reaching what I consider to be a peak with the airco mk 2s.  Mk1s are still capable of 100mph running, abeit not on the original B1 bogies.

 

 

14 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

 

We've gone from Triang Princess Elizabeth to I-phone in the last decades, but hey! that's progress....

 

 

I love my iPhone, but have to concede that my Rovex Black Princess was better at pulling model coaches.  Is it true that some current DCC locos have more computing power than Apollo 11?

 

5 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

I do have trouble expressing what I mean in words sometimes  

The fault lies entirely with my jumping the gun before I've read the post, Sir Topham, and you are blameless.