Overmod Discussion of physics of model pulling power need to be in a properly-titled new thread -- they are only remotely, if at all, on-topic for the thread as titled and what may be a rich discussion will be missed by those not following the already-beaten-to-death nominal topic.
Discussion of physics of model pulling power need to be in a properly-titled new thread -- they are only remotely, if at all, on-topic for the thread as titled and what may be a rich discussion will be missed by those not following the already-beaten-to-death nominal topic.
I know you and I could write pages and pages, I just want to point out the obvious minimum explanation. I will let Mike explore the details on his own or with your help.
I have 19th Century houses to restore...
Sheldon.
Lastspikemike Yes, thanks, I've actually previously book marked that extensively detailed description. Thanks. The disparity in pulling power for these steam locomotives has me pondering coefficients of friction on nickel silver... However, I noted an extensive thread on locomotive drawbar force as it may relate to the coefficient of friction of steel on steel as well as steel on sanded steel comparing prototype to HO. In light of the significant disagreements evident there I decided not to make my own contribution. The topic seems surprisingly controversial, given that the physics have been well understood for over 100 years. Interestingly, diesel models seem quite predictably uniform in their pulling power and roughly correspond to prototype patterns: bigger and heavier pull proportionately better. This is not the case for steam locomotive models which is frankly a bit weird.
Yes, thanks, I've actually previously book marked that extensively detailed description. Thanks.
The disparity in pulling power for these steam locomotives has me pondering coefficients of friction on nickel silver...
However, I noted an extensive thread on locomotive drawbar force as it may relate to the coefficient of friction of steel on steel as well as steel on sanded steel comparing prototype to HO.
In light of the significant disagreements evident there I decided not to make my own contribution. The topic seems surprisingly controversial, given that the physics have been well understood for over 100 years.
Interestingly, diesel models seem quite predictably uniform in their pulling power and roughly correspond to prototype patterns: bigger and heavier pull proportionately better. This is not the case for steam locomotive models which is frankly a bit weird.
It is not weird at all. Model steam locos, even with spring drivers suffer from a lack of even weight distribution on the drivers, as well as other traction losses on our sharp curves, etc. This problem increases with the number of driven axles.
The physics of the prototype does not scale down.
The flexibility of diesel trucks solves this problem.
Sheldon
doctorwayneYeah, I have one and it was a nice-running loco, but like the Genesis Mikado, has trouble pulling its own shadow.
I have four USRA light Mikados, one Genesis and three Oriental Powerhouse.
My Genesis 2-8-2 was worthless. The three Powerhouse locomotives are A+ in my book. Tenders are bad, but with new tenders and a few details, they are quite good locomotives.
My next USRA light Mikados will be Key brass models.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Lastspikemike...Genesis are pretty good, I picked up a light Mike which won't pull the skin off a rice pudding but looks oh so lovely while trying to do so...
There's a how-to on improving their tractive effort HERE
Lastspikemike...The Proto Heritage 0-8-0 steam locomotive I acquired is really quite lovely and runs well with a dummy plug....
Yeah, I have one and it was a nice-running loco, but like the Genesis Mikado, has trouble pulling its own shadow. It's mentioned (and shown) in the link offered above.
Wayne
ATLANTIC CENTRALCrude? Not sure I know what models you are comparing them to today? Just my view, but to make a comparison you need to compare a GP7 to GP7, an FA to an FA, etc. Is there stuff today like Rapido that really does go that extra mile, sure. But there are a fair number of products built in the last 20 years that had similar price points without detail as good as Proto2000. I consider most BLI diesels disapointing when compared to their Proto equivalents. My Intermountain, Proto and Genesis F units are all "about the same" with the Genesis maybe having a small edge in detail/fineness. Crude, I think not, even 30 years later.
Well Sheldon, Maybe that's too much of a generalization. I guess maybe for the price point of P2K vs. R-T-R today, they are, say, a little less detailed. For a lot of that I can't talk from personal experience, as I have not purchased a "high end" locomotive in several years, the most recent being a Genesis A-B set of F3's. As for today's Rapido, BLI, etc. I really don't know how they compare. I wholeheartedly agree with you, that the P2K line is still an excellent locomotive, and a great value for the money; and, "good enough" for me!
riogrande5761 The Proto 2000 SD7 and SD9 were not crude by todays standards, and many laud the GP30 as being quite good also, and don't really think it needs a modern tooled high fidelity replacement. Really, for those two examples, the body's were pretty nicely detailed; it was the chassis/mechanicsm that many have noted is not up to par. Some of the other models have had legitimate needs for improvements has noted. Blanket comments the a line of models is crude misses the fact that some maybe, but others not so much.
The Proto 2000 SD7 and SD9 were not crude by todays standards, and many laud the GP30 as being quite good also, and don't really think it needs a modern tooled high fidelity replacement. Really, for those two examples, the body's were pretty nicely detailed; it was the chassis/mechanicsm that many have noted is not up to par. Some of the other models have had legitimate needs for improvements has noted. Blanket comments the a line of models is crude misses the fact that some maybe, but others not so much.
Exactly, well said.
As for running qualities, I have never had any trouble getting any Proto2000 model to run well with just the most minor work.
And maybe that is generational, vs the expection of perfection out of the box.
Sams Trains on youtube did a test to see how long a Hornby cheapo trainset 0-4-0 would run before it died. Managed to clock around 341 real miles before it stopped due to overheating. After it cooled down, the engine still worked!
Given a more expensive engine with proper bearings, metal/brass gears, and a better 5 pole motor, engines made today can last a lifetime! (given there is no major fault such as split axles)
Anyways, back on the topic, I believe items that matter to you should have extra detail, whereas items that you care less about dont. Personally, I care a lot about my engines, my passenger cars, and my cabooses. Everything else(trackwork, buildings,scenery, most freight cars), I couldnt care less. That's why my engines, passenger cars, and cabooses have lots of attention to detail and operating characteristics, whereas my AAR 40' boxcars are mostly from bluebox kits, my tack is not handlaid, my buildings are kits and not scratchbuilt and scenery isnt even finished on my layout!
But things change. For example, when I first began modeling, I didnt really care about passenger cars. I knew little about their history, and little about how they worked. I had athearn bluebox, and rivarossi heavyweight cars. Later, I began learning all about them, their consists, modifications, and prominance, and as a result my standards improved. Looking at my completely unprotoypical cars, I became disappointed. I sold off all those cars, bought branchline/walthers cars, added constant dim lighting, handrails, interiors, shades, figures, underframe piping, etc. and now they're some of the most detailed pieces on my layout.
Its all about what you find important.
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
.
My Bachman DCC and sound is crawls around the layout, for got it was running one day and came back hours later, still moving.
My Proto 2000 SD-7 runs fine, Not quite as well as my Stewart/Kato F units, but absolutely it is a good runner.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
All the companys went though this phase it seems. I remember the first Spectrum steam, looked good but ran terrible, followed very quickly by better stuff. Now I have Bachmann's DCC and sound values that look better than BLI, don't run quite as nice but dose not have the problems of some of the BLI's like the NW2 that derail places that even my cheapest locos have no problems with and if you look it up, it is not just me and it is only the forward truck too.
Sheldon,Sorry, but the old P2K models (in gold boxes) are a bit crude by modern standards. The first, the BL2, had oversized plastic detail parts (as in the grabs, handrails, etc.), and, IIRC, most had a little sprue still stuck on 'em. Picking out the 1989 version of the P2K BL2 is pretty easy compared to the later ones because of that.
The FA-2/FB-2 had dim headlights and a black spinning fan in a black hole under a thick screen that one couldn't see through anyways. The flopping radiator shutters were taped into the shell, and really need to be glued in one position to look right.
The GP18 had thick plastic grills over the radiators, and the opening cab doors meant that they had unsightly seams around them.The E8A/E8B are not known for their fidelity for the nose contour and there always seemed to be a gap between the nose and the pilot. They also tended to shed axle journals unexpectedly and had a weird articulated truck where the inner axle flexed up and down.The SD7's were okay, but the ladders on the ends were molded in colored plastic that were never the same color as the paint on the shell behind them.Probably the SW series in 1995-96 were the first engines P2K made that would still hold up well today (just a little lightweight). The SD9 fixed the SD7 problem (mostly; I think the handrails were still molded in color that didn't match), the E7A/E7B was fine (but still with an awkward nose, IIRC), but the GP9 and PA-1 are not only fine but are still being made today (just recently, in fact).
I like a certain amount of detail without going overboard...everything on the layout made to the same level of detail looks better than some items highly detailed while others are not.
I don't know about P2k freight cars back in the day, but the very early vintages of P2K locos had movable subshades attached by a rather clunky rain gutter, and the grab irons were made from a delrin that was thicker than wire.
LL quickly dumped the movable sunshades and replaced the plastic grabs with wire grabs, and thinned up the handrails too.
So if we are talking very early P2K locos, I would agree that they are crude by todays models, but, they were also crude if compared to the very next vintage of P2K models that came out by about 1997.
- Douglas
E-L man tom SeeYou190 I have often wondered how many new models are sold to collectors that do not have an operating layout. It would be great to know the percentage. I am sure some of the manufacturers have an idea I don't know the answer to that Kevin, but years ago, when the P2K line of locomotives came out in the mid 1990's I had a client who collected all of those locomotives that he could, regardless of road name or paint scheme, but he didn't have a layout. My bet is that there are plenty of people like him out there. When you think about it, Life Like came out with a surprising upgrade with the P2K, which, at that time, I thought they were pretty well detailed, but almost crude by today's R-T-R standards.
SeeYou190 I have often wondered how many new models are sold to collectors that do not have an operating layout. It would be great to know the percentage. I am sure some of the manufacturers have an idea
I don't know the answer to that Kevin, but years ago, when the P2K line of locomotives came out in the mid 1990's I had a client who collected all of those locomotives that he could, regardless of road name or paint scheme, but he didn't have a layout. My bet is that there are plenty of people like him out there. When you think about it, Life Like came out with a surprising upgrade with the P2K, which, at that time, I thought they were pretty well detailed, but almost crude by today's R-T-R standards.
Crude?
Not sure I know what models you are comparing them to today?
Just my view, but to make a comparison you need to compare a GP7 to GP7, an FA to an FA, etc.
Is there stuff today like Rapido that really does go that extra mile, sure.
But there are a fair number of products built in the last 20 years that had similar price points without detail as good as Proto2000.
I consider most BLI diesels disapointing when compared to their Proto equivalents.
My Intermountain, Proto and Genesis F units are all "about the same" with the Genesis maybe having a small edge in detail/fineness.
Crude, I think not, even 30 years later.
E-L man tom when the P2K line of locomotives came out in the mid 1990's I had a client who collected all of those locomotives that he could, regardless of road name or paint scheme, but he didn't have a layout. My bet is that there are plenty of people like him out there.
I also knew a local guy that was so impressed with the new P2K line that he bought up everything he could find. That was about 25 years ago.
The P2K models are a big part of why I switched to HO scale.
They really were amazing in their day, and more than adequate for me now. The detail on a P2K model is the benchmark for what I consider "good enough".
SeeYou190I have often wondered how many new models are sold to collectors that do not have an operating layout. It would be great to know the percentage. I am sure some of the manufacturers have an idea
Lastspikemike...Old style CPR cabooses are getting rare...
If you're referring to the wooden cabooses (I've never gotten used to the term "van", despite being Canadian - it's a British term,******!), you might be interested to hear that Atlas has acquired some of the TrueLine Trains tooling, and will be producing CNR and CPR cabooses, and many of the locos and freight cars that they offered. I missed out on the Fowler stock cars first time around, and was going to scratchbuild a couple, but this will save me the trouble.
dti406 Lastspikemike The cost of acceptance rolling stock is a lot less than building it yourself if your time is at all valuable to you. You should only build it yourself for the enjoyment, you're not saving money. In fact, unless a kit gives you more options for detailing you're better off buying a finished car and detailing that, time used as compared to results achieved. If you lack skills the value of ready to run is even higher. You have that right, one of very good modelers came up with the cost to upgrade the old Lifelike X72 boxcar costs more in the parts alone than the cost of the new Rapido model and that does not include the time to do that upgrade. Rick Jesionowski
Lastspikemike The cost of acceptance rolling stock is a lot less than building it yourself if your time is at all valuable to you. You should only build it yourself for the enjoyment, you're not saving money. In fact, unless a kit gives you more options for detailing you're better off buying a finished car and detailing that, time used as compared to results achieved. If you lack skills the value of ready to run is even higher.
The cost of acceptance rolling stock is a lot less than building it yourself if your time is at all valuable to you. You should only build it yourself for the enjoyment, you're not saving money. In fact, unless a kit gives you more options for detailing you're better off buying a finished car and detailing that, time used as compared to results achieved. If you lack skills the value of ready to run is even higher.
You have that right, one of very good modelers came up with the cost to upgrade the old Lifelike X72 boxcar costs more in the parts alone than the cost of the new Rapido model and that does not include the time to do that upgrade.
Rick Jesionowski
I think the OP's question goes to do you really need to add detail at all as opposed to the most efficient way (time vs money)to have a highly detailed car.
For those who get enjoyment out of the process, it really doesn't matter whether you start with a kit or RTR and then add/change details. Go with what works best for you.
But for others Accurail kits, built as is so to speak, are a good economical way to go in the time vs money. The kits are reasonably priced and go together fairly easily and look pretty good.
In my case I am building a 10 1/2 x 34 ft layout, so I use RTR where ever I can. At 73, I don't have the time to build/detail everything. And I don't want to spend the money to buy museum quality RTR. So I go with what looks good at 3 feet.
Paul
Wayne, are you retired? Where do you get the time to get the "satisfaction" of building yourself? I felt guilty taking a couple of half days for the first time in months to work on laying track over the Labor Day weekend. Having the time to do all the stuff you do sounds like pie in the sky to some of us. I think coming here just makes me envious of all the hobby time some here seem to have.
LastspikemikeThe cost of acceptance rolling stock is a lot less than building it yourself if your time is at all valuable to you....
Time is valuable mainly because it's one of the main ingredients needed for building something rather than buying it.
Lastspikemike...You should only build it yourself for the enjoyment, you're not saving money...
I agree that building it yourself should be enjoyable, but it depends on what you're building, if you're saving money or not.I built this Rapido kit (somewhere around forty bucks at my LHS)
...mainly because Rapido doesn't make much that's suitable for my layout's era, but I did want to support them, even in this small way.
I could easily have made a comparable car for about $20.00, mainly because I have lots of left-over materials bought for building some other model that I had wanted at that time. Yes, I paid for that material, but once that car had been built, the leftover material didn't cost me a penny more, and there might be enough to build four or five cars.
A different scenario arises when the car you want is not available (not because they're all sold-out, but because it's something so obscure that chances are no one will ever make it).The ones on which I'm currently working are available as very basic kits, and also as ready-to-run, but still very basic (and they're even lettered for one of the roads I'm modelling).However, the more important details, which are needed to make it look prototypical, are either incorrect or are not present at all. My main expense, after buying the basic cars (12 of them) is for couplers and brake gear, as the kit parts for the latter are incorrect. The other main details which are missing are grabirons, and lots of them. While I usually have lots of them on-hand, the sizes needed are not standard.Fortunately, I have lots of phosphor bronze wire on hand, paid for by friends who wanted all-wheel pick-up on their steam locomotives. All that's need is that other valuable commodity - time.
I think that the necessity of highly detailed models depends on what's important to each modeller. I can afford to buy some high quality stuff, and very occasionally do (all but one as kits, and pretty-well most of them modified to make them either more prototypically-correct or more durable).
My main reason for building my own rather than buying them, is to see if I can do a credible job of it....maybe not quite as good, or maybe a little better. If it helps to improve my skills (even by acknowledging what I may have done poorly) then the time (and money) spent is worth it.I would say, though, that while the high-end r-t-r stuff does look great, I get more satisfaction out of those I've built myself...even if they're not quite the equal of the more expensive ones.
Somewhere along this train ride, I expect that I won't be able to meet my own standards, and, hopefully, will know when to quit.
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Thjs must be one of the silliest questions ever asked on this forum and I'm surprised so many readers responded. What bugs me about the question is the word "necessary". I doubt there are many, if any, things that are really necessary in this hobby -- at least I hope so. One of the pleasures of the hobby is that I can do what I want to do or buy what I want to buy. If I want to buy superdetailed cars I can but if I want to buy cars with cast on hand grabs I can do that. I think you should buy what you like and not consider what others think are "necessary". Are "incredibly detailed freight cars really necessary" ? -- of course not. Is it good for the hobby that "incredibly detailed freight cars" are available ? -- yes, of course. Is it equally good for the hobby that very inexpensive, less detailed cars are available ? -- again yes. What matters is having a choice. I don't need to be told what is "necessary". I suspect most of us have some limitation on the money we spend on the hobby and consequently it is good to have a range of model prices to fit every budget. You can enjoy this hobby on any level of spending and the important thing is not to be pressured to do what others say is "necessary".
DAVID FORTNEY So is it really necessary to pay the high prices of extreme detail if your going to run them on a layout?
So is it really necessary to pay the high prices of extreme detail if your going to run them on a layout?
Late to the party as usual, but extreme detail in rolling stock and locos is not something I'm interested in. Both from a value perspective (I'm a cheapskate) and because I'd rather not worry about detail breaking from my son (or myself if I'm honest) handling them.
I've got one Genesis loco and it looks fantastic, but I'm always worried about dinging up some littlie detail bit. On the other hand my son and I can run our blue-boxers with no worries.
As I've said before though, I'm so very thankfull for the folks who love their super-detailed cars and the companies that keep making them. Increasing "standards" is a big reason that more-and-better less-fragile rolling stock keeps appearing on the train show tables and trading sites.
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
I used to have to build what I want, now I can buy, and overall it is about the same price at times, even at retail.
BEAUSABRENo one says you have to buy them. But don't deny others the opportunity to enjoy the hobby the way they choose.
I think there is a place, as someone noted a few posts back, for kits and boxed RTR with the superdetailed shell and perhaps trucks, but a limited subset of installed detail. That would allow a wider range of modelers to get the difficult-to-make parts relatively cheaply and then add the details they value for 'runners'. And then easily superdetail when they have the time, skill, money ... and inclination ... to add specific detail.
No, it is a necessity - in order to give those who desire such models the chance to own them. If you choose not to purchase such, that's a great, it is a free country. No one says you have to buy them. But don't deny others the opportunity to enjoy the hobby the way they choose.