I was over a friends house to see his layout and the subject of the new SL automax autoracks and the 86' box car. He had a few on his layout and asked us to point them out.
We did but with other like cars the detail does not really stand out.
But if you put them side by side the difference is very noticeable. So is it really necessary to pay the high prices of extreme detail if your going to run them on a layout?
Dave
Yes.
I’m older than dirt and still have pretty good eyesight (Cataract Surgery on both eyes) and at a couple of feet I can’t see any difference so it must depend on the individual. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
DAVID FORTNEYSo is it really necessary to pay the high prices of extreme detail if your going to run them on a layout?
For some people, yes. For others like me, no.
If you don't want to pay the premium price but want the very detailed look, we have a lot of modelers on this forum who customize fairly cheap cars into very detailed ones.
I don't think I have the skills to do that yet, but it's something I will probably try in the future.
York1 John
This is a bit like asking if 23-jewel pocket watches with diamonds on the staff, sapphire on the pallets, rubies on the gold train, and damaskeening under the bridges and under the dial are necessary. Not really, and you can get comparable timekeeping and service reliability much more cheaply. But if craftsmanship of beautiful things appeals to you, and you have the money but not the time and skill to lower the cost by doing the 'improvements' yourself 'at cost' -- there you go!
No. Then again I really don't care about super detailing my freight cars and locomotives.
Sometime in the future it will be hard to handle it with your hands carefully placing it off and on the layout making sure nothing bends or broken.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
York1For some people, yes. For others like me, no.
For more than 50 years, I was perfectly happy to flip the tab on the rear view mirror and night. Now I have an automatic mirror that cost 20x as much and I can't use if I back into my garage with the sun behind the car.
I watch a guy on Youtube and when he reviews engines and rolling stock, it is not uncommon to find broken piece when he first unboxes the car. That is a triumph of technology over reason.
Sure some people want all the MU hoses, the firecracker antennas. Those of us who will have small kids handling the rolling stock don't really want broken MU hoses and firecracker stubs.
I do like separately applied grab irons and see thru mesh instead of molded plastic. But at my age, 68, I am not going to throw $50 bills or more at each car to replace my old BB rolling stock.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
First off, it is a hobby. "Nesessary" it is not.
Everybody must decide what, or how much, is important to them, and weigh that against their skills, interests, time, and money.
I like well detailed models, I was adding better trucks, full brake rigging, air hoses and cut levers to Athearn cars at age 15........that was a while ago. I was also building wood craftsman kits with separate grab irons and other "higher" levels of detail at that age.
Most of that stuff still runs on my layout today.
And I have my share of new, RTR, high detail rolling stock.
But for me, it is not essential that every piece of rolling stock on the layout be of that detail level, done by me, or RTR.
I am not, and will never be, on a program to replace every piece of "blue box" level rolling stock with some "perfect" high detail model, again, be they RTR or built/detailed by me.
So for me the answer is YES and NO.
Sheldon
The only rub to me is when the detail arms race doesn't have an alternative. Autoracks are a pretty decent example. There isn't a, uh, not-high detailed version. I don't really feel the need for see through sides, because I can't really see through the real ones in the first place.
I'm more of an impressionist than a realist! All of my modest priced models make a good impression of railroad cars and locomotives when stopped or running. I don't need the finely detailed models to enjoy running trains but do enjoy looking at the finely detailed models at a store or on someone else's layout.
NittanyLion The only rub to me is when the detail arms race doesn't have an alternative. Autoracks are a pretty decent example. There isn't a, uh, not-high detailed version. I don't really feel the need for see through sides, because I can't really see through the real ones in the first place.
Agreed.
I'm actually happy that I model 1954.
Fewer modelers even know if the models on my layout are "correct" or not.
Fewer "ultra high detail" models have been, or are being offered in my period.
And there are plenty of less detailed, reasonably correct models for my era on the secondary market.
Again, I like my FoxValley B&O wagon top box cars, and my Spring Mills Depot B&O wagon top cabooses and hoppers, my Intermountain stuff, etc.
I am a little bit more particular about detail levels on locomotives, but even there, close enough is often good enough.
I do a lot of "minimum effort modeling", that is adding just enough detail to give a model that extra bit it needs.
Hard to see in this picture, but I have a whole fleet of Athearn heavyweight passenger cars with addtional underbody detail and working daphragms.
It makes a big difference. There is no piping, just the major elements added that Athearn left off. CalScale brake cylinders and tanks, steam vents, generators, Kadee brake shoes, etc, just the stuff you can notice sitting on the track near eye level.
Or these, my modified Athearn 50's era piggybacks. This is detailed and close enough.
I have about 100 of these to support two 35-40 car trains and some cars in the terminal.
Nobody has really made a well detailed RTR version of an early piggyback. A few kits have been made, but are expensive and hard to find. And I needed a lot of these.
I can tell you everything that is not correct on them, but they capture the "feel" well enough for me.
"really necessary?" Is any model train of any level of detail or accuracy really necessary? Of course not. It all boils down to what we like and what we prioritize. The term "model railroading" (or "scale model railroading") is so incredibly broad.
I know some guys who are super fussy about accurate detail but would never think of paying for a ready to run car detailed to their high standard. Their fun is in doing the modifying and detailing (and this is important: doing the research behind that detailing) themselves. It isn't a matter of money because if you price out one of those super detailing articles in the old Mainline Modeler, or Prototype Modeler, Rail Model Journal, Model Railroading, or the handouts you get at a prototype modeling seminar, with the parts lists, it often comes out to as much or more than a RTR car that is super detailed. People used to gasp at the cost of a Kadee PS 1 boxcar but price out what it would take to bring say a Walthers or ConCor PS1 boxcar to that level of accuracy and the costs come out very close.
I know other guys who are super fussy about accurate details but would shudder to see their model subjected to a typical operating session. It is the detailing and accuracy, not the "railroading" that they emphasize.
Certainly there is a level of enjoyment in coming closer to accuracy and detail on a commercial model if the challenges are reasonable and the model is still a usable and practical part of the fleet at the end of the day. Just look at the many tutorials Wayne has given us about his tireless efforts to make accurate and attractive rolling stock out of the cheapest possible train set stuff.
I have my feet on both sides of this gulf but I will say that extremes of emotion from either side on the topic seem strange to me. Some of the prototype modeler guys seem not to realize that these are still little tiny trains that don't actually carry any freight and do not go from real town to real town.
Dave Nelson
Non disputatus de gustibus.Me, I'm interested in operations far more than anything else. Old MDC and Athearn and Details West and Walthers cars are good enough for me. I'm too busy trying to spot the car at the correct spot to worry about if I can see through the end platform or not, and if I'm ever seeing underframe details, something has gone seriously wrong.Mileage, vary, yours.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Its a need, not for running trains but for all the yards and sidings.
Overmod This is a bit like asking if 23-jewel pocket watches with diamonds on the staff, sapphire on the pallets, rubies on the gold train, and damaskeening under the bridges and under the dial are necessary. Not really, and you can get comparable timekeeping and service reliability much more cheaply. But if craftsmanship of beautiful things appeals to you, and you have the money but not the time and skill to lower the cost by doing the 'improvements' yourself 'at cost' -- there you go!
At one time a 21 jewel or better (some allowed 18 jewel or better) pocket watch, minimum size 16, lever set, arabic numerals with a 60 second sweep hand, adjusted to 6 positions and in a condition to not gain or lose more than 30 seconds a week was required.
Alas, now a watch just needs to be "reliable."
Jeff
(My work watch fits the old standard. A Hamilton 992B Railway Special.)
DAVID FORTNEY"Is incredibly detailed freight cars really necessary?".
I suppose that depends a lot on the individual. I don't consider them necessary, but have bought a couple of r-t-r highly detailed cars, and they were nice enough to use as-is (with a little weathering).
I've also bought similar cars as kits, and in most cases, fabricated better versions of some of the parts, not only to make them more accurate, but also more durable.
I'd guess that most of my model railroading friends who visit don't always notice such details, which doesn't concern me at all, as I'm not trying to impress anybody but myself (and have succeeded in that only occasionally).
However, I do enjoy the process, and generally would rather buy a suitable run-of-the-mill model, often used and/or abused, to see if I can make it into something closer to the prototype upon which the model was originally based. That doesn't mean, though, that it's necessarily "incredibly detailed"...maybe a little better-detailed than it was before I got it.
Almost 20 years ago, I modified a couple of hopper kits from Stewart (now Bowser) to better match some prototypes used in my hometown, following an article in RMC. I was fairly well-pleased by the results, and also got a nod of approval from the guy who wrote the article.Here's a photo...
Recently, while looking for another article, I came across the one I had followed, and came to the realisation that I had missed a few things, and perhaps could have done better (I wasn't the only one who missed some stuff, either, but I do feel that the author did do, in some ways, a much better job than did I.)
To address that, I decided to redo the two cars with which I had been so satisfied, and to that end, began to remove some of the added parts which were correct, but in the way of other parts which had not been included.I also managed to drop one of them, which remove quite a bit of stuff that wouldn't have needed to be removed.I also bought another ten undecorated kits, and hope to make a dozen, um...let's just say, uh, pretty-accurate models of the real ones, which were in service from 1914 into the '60s.I'll see how that turns out, and maybe do a thread on it elsewhere. If so, regardless of the results, I'll add a link to this thread.
Wayne
jeffhergertAt one time a 21 jewel or better (some allowed 18 jewel or better) pocket watch, minimum size 16, lever set, arabic numerals with a 60 second sweep hand, adjusted to 6 positions ...
(I know this isn't relevant to fancy model cars, but there are quite a few parallels between railroad watches in America and the perceived markets for really super detailed models.)
Some highly interesting things were observed on individual railroad 'approval' lists. I had thought open face was a 'hard' requirement after 1891 (no hunting-case door over the crystal and disk, and winding stem at 12:00, but apparently some older watches were 'grandfathered' in. There were no rules on where the 19 jewels had to go, and this led to some interesting approaches, notably the Howard series 0 or 5 that were good 17-jewel watches with two more applied to the mainspring arbor. Howard also was the home of "jeweling" the banking pins, not exactly what was thought of as the reason for jeweling.
Now, Webb C. Ball in the days before becoming the man who defined the 'modern' railroad watch was famous for pointing out anything more than 17 jewels were 'smokestack jewels' with regard to reliability. But putting caps on the escape wheel (the sensible interpretation of where the two extra jewels to make the 19 should go for most benefit, as on the Waltham Crescent Streets) is a major improver of reliable accuracy, and capping the lever as well gives you the canonical 21-jewel railroad watch as epitomized in all those Elgin B.W.Raymonds and Hamilton 992s. (Jeweling either the barrel, for a 'motor barrel',or the arbor then got you to 23; there were additional things to get as far as 26 but they did not really enhance either the precision of the movement or its long-term reliability from dirt and other problems. (Cap jewels are not just for keeping dust out of the bearing...)
The five positions reflect the ways a railroad man might keep his watch: dial up or down, as the watch would sit on a table, pendant (stem and bow) up, as normally carried in a pocket, and pendant left and right, as a watch might shift in a pocket if the chain became slack. Illinois pooularized the 'six positions' and some manufacturers followed. Others including Elgin were cagy and quietly started referring to adjustments rather than positions (looks the same, doesn't it?). All good watches are adjusted to temperature (which could be forked a bit to mean the balance in the watch adjusted for hot conditions and also for cold ones) and for isochronism which meant the hairspring making the watch keep time also did not vary eith temperature. So in a pissing contest an Illinois with 'temperature and six positions' did not look quite as well tinkered with as a BWR with 'eight adjustments' (which was just hot, cold, isochronism and those mandatory 5 positions).
Now it turns out there is a sneaky reason for the added showy jewels and danaskeening in watch movements that, after all, were sealed in their cases and not to be reset by employees (the major reason for lever set, and by extension 'Fort Wayne' double hour hands for men operating across time zones). Come to find that watch dealers artificially inflated the price of 'railroad' movements, "to cover the cost of the weekly time-service inspections and adjustments" with the not-do-peripheral effect that railroad watches actually became perceived as worth more as better timekeepers ... unlike in Britain where nearly any time you had a 'Railway Timekeeper' it was a scam.
Now in the later stages of railroad-watch marketing, there were technical breakthroughs in metallurgy, first in the use of Invar alloys in the balance to make hot and cold irrelevant and then Elinvar (elasticity as well as expansion temperature-invariable) to fix isochronism inherently. Then with the advent of diesel-electrics adoption of anti-magnetic construction, something you find in Walthams back to the 1870s and of course in various Paillard patent watches, became common. The interesting metallurgy developed for the production Hamilton Model 21 marine chronometers were applied to the redesigned 992B and 23-jewel bridge 950B which were two of the finest technical achievements of American practice.
Amusingly, the requirement to positively lock the regulator persisted into the wristwatch age, and you can tell many railroad-approved versions including the Ball Trainmasters and the Hamilton Electric 500s and 505s because they have little whip regulator fine adjust. (Elgin went to the funky Durabalance which requires more time to try to explain than all the interest in this forum would tolerate...)
Yes, IMO, you need some detailed cars. I think people tend to assume that this question is necessarily about ALL your cars when it's really a question about SOME of your cars.
A detailed car stands out and draws attention to itself. Then the mind wants to believe that other cars are similarly endowed. Often not the case and rarely does it need to be the case. The point is to create an illusion or as one previous commenter might call it, as impression.
But you have to start with something and the better currency you use in buying realism the more satisfied you'll likely be in the end.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I like Mike's answer above. When you simply gotta, get 'em. When you're willing to suspend disbelief (they are toys, after all), and are inclined to let your imagination fill in anything you think is missing or poorly rendered, do so....with alacrity.
As an example, when I want to watch a longer train go by, I make it up with all sorts of rolling stock from different brands with different qualities. My mind makes it look like a train from a distance, and I enjoy that. If I'm trying for realism, say with a stacked photo, camera down in the weeds, I will put my finest items in view.
Necessary? I suspect that depends on who you ask.
I sold my fleet of Athearn BB and Roundhouse cars except for the RTR cars that fit my 94/95 era and upgraded my car fleet with the higher detailed cars from Atlas,ExactRail,Intermountain,Red Caboose, Fox Valley, some Walthers and Athearn RTR.
To be sure while operating my ISL I'm more focus on the car's number then the details.
Be that has it may I'm not about to sell my Atlas RS-11s and buy Rapido RS11s. I have never and will never will play that game.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
OvermodThis is a bit like asking if 23-jewel pocket watches with diamonds on the staff, sapphire on the pallets, rubies on the gold train, and damaskeening under the bridges and under the dial are necessary. Not really, and you can get comparable timekeeping and service reliability much more cheaply. But if craftsmanship of beautiful things appeals to you, and you have the money but not the time and skill to lower the cost by doing the 'improvements' yourself 'at cost' -- there you go!
I agree. When a well detailed car is running down the track the details may not be easy to see, but when you are holding the same car in your hands, seeing the details can be very enjoyable.
I have a few very nicely detailed RTR cars and I love examining them. I also have 150 or so Athearn BB, Accurail and similar cars that are not finely detailed and IMHO they look fine on the tracks too.
This is really an 'each to his own' debate.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Necessary? From a manufacturer standpoint, they are communicating yes. ScaleTrains reports the majority of their demand is for their Rivet Counter series of models. Tangent Scale Models sell very well. Etc.
From a hobbyists stand point, was you can see in this forum, some are satisfied with lower detail models, some prefer higher fidelity models. That's pretty much it in a nut shell.
So what about Walthers autoracks, they are not high detail (all molded on) - I know, I have some. What about the operator versions from ScaleTrains more modern autorack? What about Accurail open autoracks available on the secondary market. These are examples of earlier, middle and later era auto racks without all the details.
As for other alternatives, there are a lot of lower detail models on the secondary market. Tangent just released a high fidelity Greenville 86' auto parts box car. I just sold 7 of my Athearn blue box Greenvilles 86 footers - two of them have the same paint schemes as the Tangent cars.
In the current day, really there are models to satisfy both the high fidelity fans and the "good enough" lower detail hobbyists. I really don't understand why there is an issue these days and people keep posting the same old same old. There is plenty for everyone; granted you may have to hunt for models creatively but with a little effort, you can usually find what you need. When the pandemic eventually subsides, train shows have plenty of lower detail models.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
What is necessary?
That all depends on what you want to get out of your railroad.
There is a group of older rails here in town that each have large home layouts. All these guys care about is operation. They run their trains as close to prototype practice as possible. These guys look at Blue Box cars and any reliable locomotive as being good enough. I don't think they look at any feature on the car other than reporting marks and number. As long as nothing derails or breaks down, the equipment meets all their needs.
I like to look at my trains, and take eye level photographs. I have a different standard that requires brake details and free standing ladders. I do not put brake detail on fishbelly flats or gondolas. You can't see it, I do not include it.
I have no need for super-detailed locomotives. Locomotives get handled for repair and maintenance, and I expect them to be a bit more durable than freight cars. 99% of minute detail can be better replicated for photography with paint anyway, and I am a very skilled painter. A properly painted and weathered locomotive photographs better than a super-detailed locomotive anyway.
Some people desire accuracy as much as possible, and place less importance on durability. For these people the newer hyper-detailed models are necessary, and I am glad they are available for them to purchase.
I get a lot of enjoyment from buiding as much from kits as possible, but many people do not. This is how we each find different ways to get enjoyment from this hobby, and again, it is all just fine.
There is plenty of space for "you do your thing, and I will do mine" under this umbrella for all of us.
After all, the world does not move to the beat of just one drum, and what might be right for you might not be right for some.
If you are having fun, you are doing it the right way.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Lastspikemiketoys are very serious objects
Not mine. I don't think I own anything that can be desccribed as a "Very Serious Object".
The reason the super detailed stuff is done is simple economics. A highly detailed model witll sell to some active model railroaders but will sell even more to arm chair collectors and then we have the just collectors. A much bigger pie that model railroaders with an active layout.
I see solid empty trains of autoracks all the time at Enola Yard, sometimes 50 solid autoracks (yes I count them) and one can most definitely see through them to see what is behind them. Some new racks are harder to see through, but the vast majority are see-through.
I greatly appreciate Intermountain's model. It is excellent in every way! The new run has panels that fit precisely as they should and they did a great job of achieving the look of the real cars. I like the way the light plays off the real metal side panels. To me they look as real as you can get, and since I'm not spending a fortune on little HO cars, I like being able to see through the racks. There are two different screens, and the one represents the earlier screens and is more see-through than what's on the late BNSF cars.
I also have the Atlas autorack cars and they are a great car too.
I have four of the Tangent 86' box cars, and there are many differences between the individual versions. To be honest, it's THE boxcar I always wanted. My buddy feels the same way (and got 3 of them so far). I cannot stand the crude details on the earlier cars (and got rid of all of mine many years ago), and if I even wanted to buy an earlier Walthers Thrall car right now, there are people price gouging on Ebay, attempting to sell some of them for more than twice the MSRP from when they were brand new. This makes the Tangent car at $52.95 a bargain in my eyes.
Some people are spending a relative fortune on motive power and have multiple unit sets of Genesis diesels. Others have large fleets of steam or both steam and diesel. I do not. Right now, I have one steam engine of my own of any kind (it is plastic) and that's it (all other engines are my son's).
So, if I want to buy the more nicely detailed rolling stock, and if I teach my 14 year old son how to handle it correctly, and we have the curves to operate it, then it's our railroad!
Manufacturers make what people BUY. People like myself have been asking for, hoping, dreaming somebody would make a decent 86' autoparts box car. Atlas and Intermountain also listened and made those gorgeous 'racks.
John Mock
rrebellA highly detailed model witll sell to some active model railroaders but will sell even more to arm chair collectors and then we have the just collectors. A much bigger pie that model railroaders with an active layout.
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.
If HO train cars were only purchased by people who were going to run them on layouts I would be there would be fewer models available and they would be much more expensive.
PRR8259Manufacturers make what people BUY.
John, I suspect many of us will draw a line on how much we are willing to pay for a freight car. I won't buy a (say) $60.00 flat car. I almost bulked at paying $50.00 for a boxcar but,decided to bit the apple and buy it.
Thankfully 90% of my upgraded freight car fleet was bought used at good prices.
BTW..My Santa Fe 2-8-0 and 2-8-2 looks mighty good when coupled to my KD boxcars on my test track.
At the present time, only running at a club or on modules, high end rolling stock does not make sense, it is too fragile. It is embarassing to pull a $60 RTR car out of transport or the original box to find it has broken details. So I am updating blue box and Accurail kits as runners. Just as fun, without the expense. If and when I get a permanent layout, I will have a place for a few of those high dollar RTR cars. But I don't really need them.
BRAKIEJohn, I suspect many of us will draw a line on how much we are willing to pay for a freight car.
I hope I do not cross the "This Hobby Is Too Expensive" line here.
I have no problem paying $65.00 for a Yarmouth resin kit or $125.00 for a brass tank car. These are occassional purchases of special items. I have specific models on my "To Buy List", and do not pay this price for something I will not use.
There are two Sunshine boxcar kits I would pay $100.00 for, but there always seems to be someone else willing to pay $105.00 for these on eBay... someday.
For the most part, I think hobby prices (the real prices, not MSRP), are right where they should be. Accurail kits are right on where Athearn was when adjusted for inflation. The better models cost more. The $50.00 price point for Rapido's new PENNSYLVANIA boxcars was acceptable to me for that model.
I can get an undecorated Kadee boxcar for less than $25.00, and it is perfect in every way (for me).
tin canAt the present time, only running at a club or on modules, <SNIP> I am updating blue box and Accurail kits as runners. Just as fun, without the expense.
Public displays are the perfect place for the fleet of blue box Athearn freight cars. They look more than good enough for these displays.