trainnut1250 rrebell Just wanted to see what others felt. Very hard to trim a 30 year old collection down to a managable level now that I am building a layout. I really don't know how many I started with, could have been as high as 2000 alot bought on the cheap at train shows or online, some were basket cases or for parts though. Now down to around 1200 with half unbuilt or were started (not neccisarly by me). My layout only needs about 300 cars unless I add more carfloats or expand (not much room left for that). My problem is I can not turn down a deal like 15 cars for $50 most being Tichy RTR (don't know if built from kits or gotten built). But most were fantastic. If you are not in a hurry, you can be in this hobby for little money. I can relate to this. I had to purge a large number of cars to get down to my operating roster of around 150 cars. I ended up sorting by type of car needed for the OPs scheme. There are still some stand-ins awaiting a better replacement. I had lots of Blue Box and other lesser detailed brands that didn’t make the cut and went to Ebay etc. I have a couple hundred more in storage. If you are in the in the hobby long enough, odds are you will end up with more cars that you can run (same for locos if we’re being honest). I do have some old cars around for nostalgic reasons and a few where the weathering turned out so cool that I couldn’t bear to sell them. Most of these are on the shelf.To the larger question: I don’t run very many of the old kits. I do have lots of modern wood kits that are super-detailed that I do run (Rio Grande Models). Most of the other highly detailed rolling stock was built by me from Rio Grande Models, Red Caboose, P2K and Intermountain kits.Your mileage may vary, Guy
rrebell Just wanted to see what others felt. Very hard to trim a 30 year old collection down to a managable level now that I am building a layout. I really don't know how many I started with, could have been as high as 2000 alot bought on the cheap at train shows or online, some were basket cases or for parts though. Now down to around 1200 with half unbuilt or were started (not neccisarly by me). My layout only needs about 300 cars unless I add more carfloats or expand (not much room left for that). My problem is I can not turn down a deal like 15 cars for $50 most being Tichy RTR (don't know if built from kits or gotten built). But most were fantastic. If you are not in a hurry, you can be in this hobby for little money.
Just wanted to see what others felt. Very hard to trim a 30 year old collection down to a managable level now that I am building a layout. I really don't know how many I started with, could have been as high as 2000 alot bought on the cheap at train shows or online, some were basket cases or for parts though. Now down to around 1200 with half unbuilt or were started (not neccisarly by me). My layout only needs about 300 cars unless I add more carfloats or expand (not much room left for that). My problem is I can not turn down a deal like 15 cars for $50 most being Tichy RTR (don't know if built from kits or gotten built). But most were fantastic. If you are not in a hurry, you can be in this hobby for little money.
I can relate to this. I had to purge a large number of cars to get down to my operating roster of around 150 cars. I ended up sorting by type of car needed for the OPs scheme. There are still some stand-ins awaiting a better replacement.
I had lots of Blue Box and other lesser detailed brands that didn’t make the cut and went to Ebay etc. I have a couple hundred more in storage. If you are in the in the hobby long enough, odds are you will end up with more cars that you can run (same for locos if we’re being honest). I do have some old cars around for nostalgic reasons and a few where the weathering turned out so cool that I couldn’t bear to sell them. Most of these are on the shelf.To the larger question: I don’t run very many of the old kits. I do have lots of modern wood kits that are super-detailed that I do run (Rio Grande Models). Most of the other highly detailed rolling stock was built by me from Rio Grande Models, Red Caboose, P2K and Intermountain kits.Your mileage may vary,
Guy
Visible wood grain? It depends.
Probably not on varnish, that's for sure, at least until it's parceled out to the MOW gangs to reuse.
Cabooses were often as shiny as the varnish, but you could usually see grain visible on steps and end platforms.
Basically any place where wood sees regular wear and tear and only limited paint or other upkeep, the grain starts becoming visible. The softer parts wear away easily, with the grain that stands out being the harder parts. Between working on a farm that was mostly not composed of steel buildings when I was younger and visiting such places as the Colorado RR Museum, Chama, and Durango, you can see the different aging effects on wood protected to varying degrees. You do have to be careful, though, as many passenger cars that look like they're wood on narrowgauge now, particualrly in the D&S, are actually steel.
Basically, the older and less well maintained wood cars generally have visible grain around the well worn areas.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Dr. Wayne,
Stupid (&((*&fw2lhfH(Rolf)*** computer!
Anyway, got your note and replied (I think) and thanks!
Ed
twhiteEd, when you're my age, 6 inches is just a big blur. Tom
Tom
Tom,
I'm sorry that that is so. One's hands and eyes are so precious.
My best in dealing with this,
I may be a complete maverick on this:
My freight and passenger cars, and even my locomotives, are simply markers in the game called, "Run a railroad." Most of my freight equipment is, unashamedly, RTR tinplate (honest to Murgatroyd galvanized sheet steel) and the really detailed examples can be counted on the fingers of one hand. My passenger cars (including MU cars both diesel and electric) aren't much better. My locomotives meet the detailing standard of 1960s brass and I don't obsess over the lack of hex nut unions on the various air, water and steam lines.
That said, I run what I have. Every piece has its appropriate place in the puzzle. My eyesight is challenged enough reading white car numbers on black cars, so I really don't need fragile hyperdetails. In my case the three foot rule is more like the three meter rule. If there appears to be a train running up the gorge from Haruyama to Tomikawa, good enough. If it's running on time, even better...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)
7j43k twhite Well, since I'm usually about 3 to 6 feet away from my HO scale trains, it doesn't bother me one iota to run trains full of Silver Streak, Ambroid or Athearn or Varney metal freight cars along with my newer super-detailed plastic ones. I don't know about the rest of you, but my viewing point for my model railroad is usually that of a 'helicopter'. I'm not photorgraphing or filming my model railroad most of the time, I'm RUNNING it, and that calls for a rather larger scope of sight than a camera lens. Tom Some models ONLY look good from three feet away. But others look good BOTH at 6 inches and three feet. I prefer to see the latter as "dual usage". Ed
twhite Well, since I'm usually about 3 to 6 feet away from my HO scale trains, it doesn't bother me one iota to run trains full of Silver Streak, Ambroid or Athearn or Varney metal freight cars along with my newer super-detailed plastic ones. I don't know about the rest of you, but my viewing point for my model railroad is usually that of a 'helicopter'. I'm not photorgraphing or filming my model railroad most of the time, I'm RUNNING it, and that calls for a rather larger scope of sight than a camera lens. Tom
Well, since I'm usually about 3 to 6 feet away from my HO scale trains, it doesn't bother me one iota to run trains full of Silver Streak, Ambroid or Athearn or Varney metal freight cars along with my newer super-detailed plastic ones. I don't know about the rest of you, but my viewing point for my model railroad is usually that of a 'helicopter'. I'm not photorgraphing or filming my model railroad most of the time, I'm RUNNING it, and that calls for a rather larger scope of sight than a camera lens.
Some models ONLY look good from three feet away. But others look good BOTH at 6 inches and three feet. I prefer to see the latter as "dual usage".
Ed, when you're my age, 6 inches is just a big blur.
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Thank you. I appreciate it.
7j43k NP2626 ...obviously plastic car manufacturers feel their wood cars need grain on them as they mold them with grain. Oh? Rapido makes a wood reefer. Grain? Branchline does too. Grain? BLI makes a wood express reefer. Grain? Walthers makes one too. Grain? Athearn makes a wood sided boxcar and some wooden passenger cars. Grain? Model Power makes/made a cute wood sided passenger car. Grain? Intermountain makes GN wood sided boxcars. Grain? Ed
NP2626 ...obviously plastic car manufacturers feel their wood cars need grain on them as they mold them with grain.
...obviously plastic car manufacturers feel their wood cars need grain on them as they mold them with grain.
Oh?
Rapido makes a wood reefer. Grain?
Branchline does too. Grain?
BLI makes a wood express reefer. Grain?
Walthers makes one too. Grain?
Athearn makes a wood sided boxcar and some wooden passenger cars. Grain?
Model Power makes/made a cute wood sided passenger car. Grain?
Intermountain makes GN wood sided boxcars. Grain?
Ed,
I found molded on grain texture on my Accurail outside braced box cars, my Central Valley Model Works stock cars, a Tichy outside braced box car and my lifelike P2K Mather stock cars. Some of them the grain is hardly noticeable; but I found it there. I'm going to end this petty argument and will not respond to anything more form you as I do not find much of what you say, to be of a friendly nature!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
leighant ...I want to build a couple of Santa Fe BX-3 panel-side boxcars...
Me, too, but I'll be using styrene for everything but the weights, couplers, and screws. I would guess that we'll both have fun with the construction and both enjoy our own finished cars, too, and will each have good reason to prefer our own methods. Can't beat that with a stick, eh?
Wayne
I put much more stock in how well a car runs, how it tracks etc. than how it looks. If I get a very nicely detailed one that also handles the track superbly, it's a plus!
I disagree, I think wood looks like wood and obviously plastic car manufacturers feel their wood cars need grain on them as they mold them with grain. However, you don't think so and so you are certainly entitled to your opinion?
I don't view my cars from 6 inches away. I'm old and my eyesight isn't sharp enough to view things that close. Quite frankly, my opinion is that weathering a car is far more important to realizm than having the tinyest scale flit-flat on them. That's what is great about this hobby, we are; or, at least should be, able to enjoy it the way we want, without critisim from people who think their way is the only way.
The fact is I have yet to buy a RTR, highly detailed RR car. I have plenty of highly detailed cars that I built from kits. I love to build car kits, either from plastic, metal; or, wood, don't care. I believe I said earlier that I would have little, to no pride, in any RTR cars.
Yup. There's a reason they traditionally called passenger cars "varnish". Wooden passenger cars had their surfaces smoothed and varnished and polished to a high sheen because anything less would lead to deterioration. I've never understood distressing plastic or resin surfaces to enhance the appearance of wood grain on models, except for certain very specific applications (old running boards; cars ready for the scrapper; the floors of some gons & flatcars). If you could see the grain from a distance equivalent to 24" on an HO layout, then that wood was in pretty bad shape & in serious need of replacement. Whether that's a "friendly" statement or not is totally irrelevant & introduces emotion (subjectivity) into a discussion that should remain purely objective. A 1:1 item (i.e., wood), if used to represent an 87.1 to one model, will have grain that is 87.1 times too big. It's not friendliness or lack of it; it's math.
NP2626 7j43k Geared Steam Wood looks like real wood, what better for a wooden boxcar? Almost anything else, including plastic and metal. That's because what you see when you look at a real wooden boxcar is paint. And possibly weathered paint. By the time a wooden boxcar shows a lot of wood, it should have been scrapped. And even then, real wood's grain is way too coarse to model most model wood. Flat car and gondola decks come to mind as an exception. If you're building one of the excellent LaBelle passenger car kits, it'll look pretty awful unless you spend a lot of time applying sanding sealer. So that it's as smooth as, yes, plastic. Ed This certainly sounds like you feel, what in actuallity is only your opinion, is the gosple! I don't find this to be a very friendly statement! Had you stated: I feel almost anything besides wood, including plastic and metal, looks more like wood. Then you would have only given your opinion. My comment stands and I feel no need to appologize.
7j43k Geared Steam Wood looks like real wood, what better for a wooden boxcar? Almost anything else, including plastic and metal. That's because what you see when you look at a real wooden boxcar is paint. And possibly weathered paint. By the time a wooden boxcar shows a lot of wood, it should have been scrapped. And even then, real wood's grain is way too coarse to model most model wood. Flat car and gondola decks come to mind as an exception. If you're building one of the excellent LaBelle passenger car kits, it'll look pretty awful unless you spend a lot of time applying sanding sealer. So that it's as smooth as, yes, plastic. Ed
Geared Steam Wood looks like real wood, what better for a wooden boxcar?
Wood looks like real wood, what better for a wooden boxcar?
Almost anything else, including plastic and metal. That's because what you see when you look at a real wooden boxcar is paint. And possibly weathered paint. By the time a wooden boxcar shows a lot of wood, it should have been scrapped. And even then, real wood's grain is way too coarse to model most model wood. Flat car and gondola decks come to mind as an exception.
If you're building one of the excellent LaBelle passenger car kits, it'll look pretty awful unless you spend a lot of time applying sanding sealer. So that it's as smooth as, yes, plastic.
This certainly sounds like you feel, what in actuallity is only your opinion, is the gosple! I don't find this to be a very friendly statement! Had you stated: I feel almost anything besides wood, including plastic and metal, looks more like wood. Then you would have only given your opinion. My comment stands and I feel no need to appologize.
Sorry, he's completely and unarguably right: grain doesn't scale down because it's made from full size wood. It simply doesn't work that way.
And if you can see bare wood on a full size railcar, then the wood is already rotting and that car is worthless. Full size wooden cars have so much paint on them that you can't see the wood grain at all from any real distance.
For me, running some wood-body model cars is part of my planned FUTURE- because I want to BUILD some particular cars. I have paper sides for a dry-ice reefer and plan to build it with a wood core. I want to build a couple of Santa Fe BX-3 panel-side boxcars- will probably bash the corrugated ends from an old plastic car, build up the sides with Plastruct and build it all around a wood core. I'm glad I got some wood roof stock and car floor stock when it was available in N scale 35 years ago.
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I run everything together. However, I did set minimum standards for my layout. Every car, whether it's a yellow box Athearn or a brand new Tangent, must have Kadee couplers, Intermountain wheelsets, brake hoses, uncoupling levers, brake line detail if the underside will be seen and some degree of weathering if it goes on the layout. Most people who see my layout cannot tell the difference between a $50 RTR car and a 50 year old Athearn car. Basically, I wanted the trains to blend, and not have detailed (or undetailed) cars stick out like a sore thumb. Some may question detailing old cars with molded stirrups and ladders, but hey, my layout, my cars, my money, my time, my choice!
My recommendation for most things hobby related is do what you want. If cars without uncoupling levers bothers you, like it did me, then fix it!
NP2626However, there is an undercurrent in what I see you say, leading me to believe that you are judgemental about other peoples work that doesn't measure up to your higher standards.
If you are in HOn3 and don't have the $60-$70 for a RTR plastic car, then the very few plastic kits or your old wood LaBelles are about your only choice with scratchbuilding always an option. Fortunately most trains in HOn3 are short and the need for an empire of cars loafing about in large yards or following a triple header is just not the norm.
So, yes I run real wood and like it a lot along with what plastic that is acceptable in the gauge. What little Blackstone rolling stock I have afforded myself is used for photo-ops along with a few select wooden cars.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
dstarr This is a pure scratch build from basswood. I built it a long time ago. And this another pure scratch build, also very old. The "steel" sides are actually glossy photographic paper over sheet basswood. And this is a Ambroid "one-in-five-thousand" kit, all basswood with a few pot metal castings. It's also pretty old. I have ballasted the track since I took these pix. The track is ordinary code 100 flex track with the rails brush painted with Floquil rust.
This is a pure scratch build from basswood. I built it a long time ago.
And this another pure scratch build, also very old. The "steel" sides are actually glossy photographic paper over sheet basswood.
And this is a Ambroid "one-in-five-thousand" kit, all basswood with a few pot metal castings. It's also pretty old.
I have ballasted the track since I took these pix. The track is ordinary code 100 flex track with the rails brush painted with Floquil rust.
Boy, I gotta agree with Rich, these models can stand up to any RTR models out there! Great job David Starr!
There are times when a car is only available as a wood kit. I'm a Northern Pacific Modeller with a chosen era of around 1953. This was the transition era for the N.P. and steam was getting close to it's last days with the N.P. In order to run any freight trains, the only way I can have a 24 foot N.P. cabooose is to build them from wood kits or buy brass models. My American Model Builders Laser Kit or Gloor Craft N.P. 24 footers are very nice models. I think $50.00 for a wood kit is much more palletable than $150.00 for a brass model. I guess if your opinion is wood kits are just not good enough, the cost of your hobby has just sky rocketed!
dstarr This is a pure scratch build from basswood. I built it a long time ago.
I can't even make a RTR box car look that good.
Scratch built? As in built from scratch? Awesome.
Rich
Alton Junction
7j43k You would be wrong if: You thought I haven't built LaBelle, Ambroid, Silver Streak, Ulrich, Model Die Casting, Model Engineering Works......... And I still have them. For nostalgia. I would never (well, hardly ever) run them with current rolling stock. The only one that comes to mind that I am expecting to introduce to current operation on the logging branch is my Model Engineering Works side dump car. It still holds up well, though I think it needs work on the grabs and steps. And no one has made a replacement. Oh, yeah. Throw in some Kadee disconnect log trucks too. They're still quite nice. But with Sergent couplers. They REALLY benefit from them. Ed
You would be wrong if:
You thought I haven't built LaBelle, Ambroid, Silver Streak, Ulrich, Model Die Casting, Model Engineering Works.........
And I still have them.
For nostalgia.
I would never (well, hardly ever) run them with current rolling stock.
The only one that comes to mind that I am expecting to introduce to current operation on the logging branch is my Model Engineering Works side dump car. It still holds up well, though I think it needs work on the grabs and steps. And no one has made a replacement.
Oh, yeah. Throw in some Kadee disconnect log trucks too. They're still quite nice. But with Sergent couplers. They REALLY benefit from them.
I think your opinion on all this is just fine, for you. I disagree with your opinions, simply because what is important to you, is not as important to me. By all means do what you do and have fun at it. However, there is an undercurrent in what I see you say, leading me to believe that you are judgemental about other peoples work that doesn't measure up to your higher standards.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
7j43kI would never (well, hardly ever) run them with current rolling stock.
To each his own. Having every piece of rolling stock being detailed to the hilt by present day standards is unlikely to be noticed by most visitors, who tend to consider the layout as a whole. It's a little like have fully detailed interiors in every building, even ones where there's no chance anyone will look inside.
And there's something to be said for nostalagia, So long as cars are in good running condition, they're OK with me to run. They may be old, lack certain details, etc, but they serve a purpose as stand-ins or just a reminder of how far things have come.
I run pretty much everything together.
Personally, I like building wood cars from wood - have one under construction now.
Sure, if you're doing closeup photography, many cars won't show well. But then, I don't run photographs.
Enjoy
Paul
One of my problems is every car is subject to the 6" rule, accually 3" if I get up real close. Yes I was talking about wood craftsman kits, all were bought built but many needed major repairs (that is what I like to do and have gone so far as to make cutom z molding for a car (luckily I only needed a small peice). Most of my layout cars are Tichy from one company or another (think I will start another thread about name all the companys that used or had molds made by Tichy).