mobilman44To some, "the drive is more enjoyable than the destination". To others, "the destination is more enjoyable than the drive".
I'm definitely in the former camp. I recently returned home from Indianapolis by driving back part of the way on US 36 rather than taking I-70. While it added 2 hours to the trip, it was SOOOOO much more enjoyable and relaxing to drive through and view the scenic IN and OH farm land and small towns along two-lane US 36 rather than along side semis and crazy drivers on the interstate. (The cherry trees in full bloom were a bonus.) Compared to the "destinations", it was definitely a hightlight of my trip and I would do it again.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
DrWThe grab irons on C&BT Santa Fe reefers are plastic of a very special kind that breaks just by looking at them. I just finished one reefer, using the grab irons from three kits.
Hi DrW,
I learned the hard way that I am way to much of a klutz to be able to handle cars with delicate details. I recently bought a beautifully detailed and weathered CP freight car. It had every detail imaginable added to it and all of the details were very delicate. In fact they were so delicate that every time I picked the car up I managed to break off a ladder or a stirrup. It arrived in perfect condition but it is now missing four of six ladders and one stirrup. I tried desperately to handle it properly but I broke parts off anyhow. Now I'm afraid to touch it.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
To some, "the drive is more enjoyable than the destination". To others, "the destination is more enjoyable than the drive".
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Yea, they are a bit delicate - particularly the stirrups. On a few Proto 2000 50' boxcars, I replaced the stirrups with A-line metal stirrups. That's still a little challenging though, as you have to drill the holes from the bottom side and keep the drill bit parallel to the sides because the OD of drill bit is slightly over half the thickness of the side wall. That doesn't allow you much wiggle room should you drill those holes slightly askew.
RTR, my time is worth far too much to screw around building something that can be purchased all ready done.
An "expensive model collector"
tstage Hopper car corner grab irons sure are a challenge! Plus the grab irons had to be properly oriented as one leg was ever-so-slightly shorter than the side that goes into the body. No idea how two out of the six cars were missing the WAB in Wabash? I've assembled a few of those Proto 2000 war emergency hoppers myself, Ed, so I know exactly what you are saying. When done properly though, they do look great. I don't know how you did them, Ed, but I found that adding the CA to the metal grab irons AFTER installing them in the holes worked best. I applied a small amount of medium CA with the back end tip of a pair of needle-nose tweezers. The CA would then draw into the hole via capillary action. As far as the missing lettering, just tell everyone that those particular hoppers are designated for the "ash" pit. Tom
Hopper car corner grab irons sure are a challenge! Plus the grab irons had to be properly oriented as one leg was ever-so-slightly shorter than the side that goes into the body. No idea how two out of the six cars were missing the WAB in Wabash?
No idea how two out of the six cars were missing the WAB in Wabash?
I've assembled a few of those Proto 2000 war emergency hoppers myself, Ed, so I know exactly what you are saying. When done properly though, they do look great.
I don't know how you did them, Ed, but I found that adding the CA to the metal grab irons AFTER installing them in the holes worked best. I applied a small amount of medium CA with the back end tip of a pair of needle-nose tweezers. The CA would then draw into the hole via capillary action.
As far as the missing lettering, just tell everyone that those particular hoppers are designated for the "ash" pit.
gmpullmanHopper car corner grab irons sure are a challenge! Plus the grab irons had to be properly oriented as one leg was ever-so-slightly shorter than the side that goes into the body. No idea how two out of the six cars were missing the WAB in Wabash?
tstagePutting on a head visor with tweezers in my hand made me excited to take on more challenges. I totally understand, however, that may not be everyone's cup of tea.
One of my most recent 'vintage' Life-Like kit builds was six War emergency hoppers. The end and side grabs were all the 'honing' my Opi-Visored eyes and tweezered hands needed! About 168 side and end grabs in total gave me all the 'fun' I was looking for!
LL_hopper2 by Edmund, on Flickr
Hopper car corner grab irons sure are a challenge! Plus the grab irons had to be properly oriented as one leg was ever-so-slightly shorter than the side that goes into the body.
Cheers, Ed
I have several hundred freight cars, mostly Santa Fe. Most were purchased RTR, about 10% are kits built by me (often because the RTR version of the specific model was sold out). Precisely two cars are kits purchased assembled on eBay. Both are Sunshine resin kits of car models not available otherwise.
I enjoy kit building. But if car is available RTR and kit for the same price, then I'll buy RTR. I have way more kits to build than I'll ever complete.
I pretty much build kits according to instructions. If I want something different, then I usually scratch/parts build.
Paul
Well, building kits is definitely "my cup of tea". Yikes, I started on ships and planes when I was 12 (1956), built many hundreds of RR kits (cars/structures), did a few military items, and currently I'm building car kits again.
I'll be 80 next week, but I still get that surge of satisfaction upon completing a model. Yup, I've had to use a multi visor for years, and I have to do the intricate parts and painting when my hands can be steadied, but it is still a passion.
I know I've had well over 700 pieces of rolling stock over the years, and I'd guess that 20 or less were RTR. I did have 15 or 16 Walthers ATSF and IC passenger cars, and I know they are flouted as RTR, but I never considered them to be that. As threads here will attest, they all needed some "adjustments" to get them to work correctly as advertised.
My first rolling stock kit was an Accurail boxcar. My 2nd kit, a Proto 2000 8K gal tank car. BIG difference ...but I got it done.
While that kit was challenging to assemble, it was equally satisfying to complete it. And a bonus was I began learning the various components of a tank car. My next attempt at another Proto 2000 tank car only took me 1/2 the time to assemble.
For me - kit building fostered more kit building. I also looked at it as a way to hone my hand-skills as a technician. (What I do for a living.) Putting on a head visor with tweezers in my hand made me excited to take on more challenges. I totally understand, however, that may not be everyone's cup of tea.
kasskaboose After building some walthers tank cars, I got turned off to the idea of making my own cars. The trucks and couplers were not able to operate properly on even straight track. Are there more reputable builders to use?
After building some walthers tank cars, I got turned off to the idea of making my own cars. The trucks and couplers were not able to operate properly on even straight track. Are there more reputable builders to use?
Interesting, a Walthers 23,500 gallon modern tank car kit was the kit that put me over the edge on wanting to build model train kits. Excessive flash, poor instructions, hard to keep steady to put together, break out the magna visor and tweezers to put a little part in a small hole. Way different than Athearn or Accurail kits, and simply more tedium than satisfying. As they say, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
I would have to look very closely at the assembly quality of the more craftsman type of kits if a personal seller is selling one.
- Douglas
Having bought both kits and RTR over the years I used to buy kits because they could be upgraded to what I wanted. Then things became available in RTR and now most things I want are available in RTR except 36' old time boxcars with separate grab irons. They are available in HOn3 but not HO.
Mobileman44,
My appoligies for not seeing your earlier mid stream response. An example of why I am not qualified to use a phone, or sometimes even my tablet, for this kind of thing.
A few thoughs.
Just the opposite of you, in my 57 years in this hobby I have never been in the "selling" side regarding my personal collection. In all that time I have only sold off about 12 items that I later decided did not fit my needs.
I worked in two hobby shops, managing the train department in one of them, from 1970 to 1980. That was enough "dealing in trains" for me.
I still don't understand people who buy stuff, keep/use it a while, then sell it and buy more stuff, similar or different, and then later sell that stuff, etc.
I only buy what fits the carefully constructed theme of the layout, which has not changed in nearly 40 years.
As mentioned before, I buy NOS type "used" stuff all the time, RTR or kit, but very seldom do I buy obviously "already been played with" stuff.
So I am not surprised by your observations one bit.
The price of new items is at least partly driven by "cost to produce". The cost of "used" items is strickly supply and demand.
Sheldon
Hi,
It looks like this thread has run its course. I Have to say I'm surprised at the many different views and comments and generated "rabbit trails".
But, I guess that is a good thing!
AEP528 ATLANTIC CENTRAL I never suggested any such assumption and I agree that modern products of ALL types have given modelers a new freedom to pursue the hobby in the ways that best suit their skills and interests. That's fair. Unfortunately there are so many people across the model railroad forums who loudly proclaim that the hobby has changed for the worse over the last XX years that's become my assumption, esepcailly on a thread around value of kits versus built-up kits. And I'm not even sure that the hobby itself has really changed all that much. My goal has always been to have a realistic and plausible model railroad. There have been changes in the means to do that; Some things I build, some things I buy, all that's changed is the ratio between the two. The end product itself is the same. ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have my own personal example - track - I learned to hand lay track, built TruScale turnout kits and scratch build turnouts by age 16. That is a skill I now reserve for special situations. My new layout requires 140 turnouts and 2,000 ft of track - I will spend my time elsewhere given the quality and appearance of commercial track these days. I buy my share of RTR, I also still build craftsman kits, and everything in between. I save my skills for the projects where they are most important. But I will say this, there is no task in the hobby that I simply hate - for me it is just about time allocation. I would say I spend my time on the aspects of the hobby I enjoy the most. It follows that my skills are most developed in those areas, but skill development has never been a goal of mine in model railroading. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Allen McClelland was also a proponent of "good enough" modeling, me too. That's why I will never replace all my Blue Box freight cars, etc. I agree with you, "representitive" is often more than good enough. Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I never suggested any such assumption and I agree that modern products of ALL types have given modelers a new freedom to pursue the hobby in the ways that best suit their skills and interests.
I never suggested any such assumption and I agree that modern products of ALL types have given modelers a new freedom to pursue the hobby in the ways that best suit their skills and interests.
That's fair. Unfortunately there are so many people across the model railroad forums who loudly proclaim that the hobby has changed for the worse over the last XX years that's become my assumption, esepcailly on a thread around value of kits versus built-up kits.
And I'm not even sure that the hobby itself has really changed all that much. My goal has always been to have a realistic and plausible model railroad. There have been changes in the means to do that; Some things I build, some things I buy, all that's changed is the ratio between the two. The end product itself is the same.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have my own personal example - track - I learned to hand lay track, built TruScale turnout kits and scratch build turnouts by age 16. That is a skill I now reserve for special situations. My new layout requires 140 turnouts and 2,000 ft of track - I will spend my time elsewhere given the quality and appearance of commercial track these days. I buy my share of RTR, I also still build craftsman kits, and everything in between. I save my skills for the projects where they are most important. But I will say this, there is no task in the hobby that I simply hate - for me it is just about time allocation.
I have my own personal example - track - I learned to hand lay track, built TruScale turnout kits and scratch build turnouts by age 16. That is a skill I now reserve for special situations. My new layout requires 140 turnouts and 2,000 ft of track - I will spend my time elsewhere given the quality and appearance of commercial track these days.
I buy my share of RTR, I also still build craftsman kits, and everything in between.
I save my skills for the projects where they are most important.
But I will say this, there is no task in the hobby that I simply hate - for me it is just about time allocation.
I would say I spend my time on the aspects of the hobby I enjoy the most. It follows that my skills are most developed in those areas, but skill development has never been a goal of mine in model railroading.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Allen McClelland was also a proponent of "good enough" modeling, me too. That's why I will never replace all my Blue Box freight cars, etc. I agree with you, "representitive" is often more than good enough. Sheldon
Allen McClelland was also a proponent of "good enough" modeling, me too. That's why I will never replace all my Blue Box freight cars, etc.
I agree with you, "representitive" is often more than good enough.
No disagreement with any of that.
A few more thoughts, again from someone who started in the hobby when all the good stuff was kit built, and who learned from a lot of people 15-20 years older than me.
The hobby has always included all types of people with various approaches, skill levels, goals and interests. However there is no question in my mind that years ago the product limitations discouraged those who had less skills or were not interested in learning those skills.
For decades that changed SLOWLY, I watched it. I worked in this buisness in the 70's, pretty much the whole of the 70's.
Then, thru the 80's and early 90's product and manufacturing inovations started to change the hobby in dramatic ways. Ways that were not even fully recognized right away.
I personally knew some of the people responsible for these advances, Bachmann Spectrum, Proto2000, etc.
I love all the advancements, even ones I choose not to use, like DCC or sound.
AND I respect the craftsmanship of the past, the cutting edge detail in the Revell structure kits, the constant improvement of the Athearn drive, the developement of the Kadee coupler, etc. All things that played and important part in getting us here today.
I'm building a large layout, I like long trains. I'm not building 1000 craftsman kits, and I'm not buying 1000 $50 RTR freight cars. So there is a balance, some $50 RTR freight cars, "Blue Box" style freight cars (kit and RTR), early easy to build "semi craftsman" kits, serious craftsman kits.
I'm a kit basher, or RTR basher in some cases. I practice "minimum effort modeling" in many cases.
And I love one of the things you hate - painting and lettering cars. I love my freelance/protolance layout theme.
To get back to the OP's question, assuming I understand it correctly, I have NO interest in buying a model assembled for resale AFTER it leaves the manufacturers factory?
What is the end game here? Why would this be a business model? The only thing I can possiblely think of is weathering and/or road numbers?
I'm way to fussy about weathering and think 85% of it is over done.
And I'm surely not paying any more than what factory RTR models already cost.
More reputable builders? I don't know how to say this, and I don't know exactly which Walthers product you had, or how old it was but there are no quality issues with any Walthers kits I am aware of, and I have been building HO rolling stock kits since about 1967.
Rolling stock kit building just might not be your thing?
Were these Proto2000 tank cars? First that is/was really a LifeLike product in the early days of Proto2000. Second, they are somewhat advanced kits, even though they are plastic.
I'm 100 percent kit builder.
Even some of the RTR stuff I have has been kitbashed to improve looks and reliability.
And yes, I'm aware that my resale value depends greatly on the person purchasing it.
When I'm long gone, I'm sure my fleet will go to the first person that shows up with $5.
I don't care about any of that, I had fun putting it all together.
( And, I must be the only modeler here that LOVES decaling. )
Rust...... It's a good thing !
AEP528 ATLANTIC CENTRAL I will say this about the various responses, they clearly show how the hobby has changed in the last 50 years. Sheldon The biggest change is that modellers can spend more time on the things they want to do, as opposed to things they have to do. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all modellers 50+ years ago put the effort into kit- and scratch-building because they wanted to. I will cite Allen McClelland as proof of that. He credits the existence of the V&O to the availability of RTR (or near RTR) locomotive and rolling stock models. And that was 60+ years ago. To paraphrase, because I don't have the V&O Story nearby, he was able to spend time "building a model railroad, instead of railroad models."
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I will say this about the various responses, they clearly show how the hobby has changed in the last 50 years. Sheldon
I will say this about the various responses, they clearly show how the hobby has changed in the last 50 years.
The biggest change is that modellers can spend more time on the things they want to do, as opposed to things they have to do. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all modellers 50+ years ago put the effort into kit- and scratch-building because they wanted to.
I will cite Allen McClelland as proof of that. He credits the existence of the V&O to the availability of RTR (or near RTR) locomotive and rolling stock models. And that was 60+ years ago. To paraphrase, because I don't have the V&O Story nearby, he was able to spend time "building a model railroad, instead of railroad models."
Way back when I was in the hobby shop business, I dealt directly with Intermountain. Intermountain was experimenting with RTR car offerings. Their salesman explained it this way, "we can ship our kits to China for assembly, get them built, reboxed, and shipped back to the USA for $4.00 a car." Of course, the mark up I paid was significantly more as a dealer. I sold very few RTR Intermountain cars, and I think retail was $22 a car (back in 1999).
When it comes to rolling stock, I don't build kits, never have, never will. But, then, I only got into scale model railroading 20 years ago. Although kits were still readily available back then, I had no interest in them because RTR stuff was also readily available. I had my fill of building kits, tanks, planes, ships and cars when I was a kid.
Rich
Alton Junction
mobilman44 The question has bugged me for some time. I've bought and sold a lot of rolling stock and locos (Ebay) and find the trend going from kit to RTR over the 24 years I've been "in the market". I'm sure that is no surprise to anyone here. But the pricing (I'm a retired business analyst) of the two forms intrigues me. RTR is always higher as its always "new", and of course prices have gone up over time. Kit prices have gone up some, with (IMO) the lack of demand keeping the supply and prices suppressed. Again, no big surprise here. But what I do find "notable" is that well built railcar kits sell for the same car in kit form or less. ASSUMING the quality of the build is there, I would feel that the built up kit would sell for more - perhaps not what an original RTR would go for, but certainly more than the unbuilt kits. Oh, to hopefully calm suspicions of ulterior motives..... I had a 600 plus railcar inventory of kits and build ups. Today I have ONE built up, and THREE kits, and they are NOT for sale.
The question has bugged me for some time. I've bought and sold a lot of rolling stock and locos (Ebay) and find the trend going from kit to RTR over the 24 years I've been "in the market". I'm sure that is no surprise to anyone here.
But the pricing (I'm a retired business analyst) of the two forms intrigues me. RTR is always higher as its always "new", and of course prices have gone up over time.
Kit prices have gone up some, with (IMO) the lack of demand keeping the supply and prices suppressed. Again, no big surprise here.
But what I do find "notable" is that well built railcar kits sell for the same car in kit form or less. ASSUMING the quality of the build is there, I would feel that the built up kit would sell for more - perhaps not what an original RTR would go for, but certainly more than the unbuilt kits.
Oh, to hopefully calm suspicions of ulterior motives..... I had a 600 plus railcar inventory of kits and build ups. Today I have ONE built up, and THREE kits, and they are NOT for sale.
IMO, an RTR model is the same thing as an assembled kit, so the price should be the same. The guy who built his kit on his workbench is competing with the labor costs (and shipping I guess) of the talented young lady building the same kit in China. He's not going to be able to sell his talent and labor for more than hers, IMO.
When Proto went RTR from kits, their RTR was exactly the same as the kit. It was even described as an "assembled kit". And today, the undecorated versions you can buy from manufacturers tend to simply be the same parts as the RTR, just in disassembled form.
Now, if that guy is adding different parts, different paint, maybe weathering...better couplers, etc. then he's adding value to the assembled kit from what the market can get from RTR China.
AEP528Don't make the mistake of assuming that all modellers 50+ years ago put the effort into kit- and scratch-building because they wanted to.
I agree with this 100%. Just because "everybody" scratchbuilt or kit built decades ago, doesn't mean they actually wanted to.
A lot of it was driven by the desire to have more specific models or better details than what they could buy generically. A necessary (evil) tradeoff. Far fewer did it simply because they wanted to be a craftsman. I have no interest in being a craftsman. I assume there is a lot of us in the hobby, and always was.
RTR and greater availability of models has increased my interest in the hobby, not diminished it.
mobilman44 But what I do find "notable" is that well built railcar kits sell for the same car in kit form or less. ASSUMING the quality of the build is there, I would feel that the built up kit would sell for more - perhaps not what an original RTR would go for, but certainly more than the unbuilt kits.
If I were to pay someone to build a kit for me, I would expect to pay the cost of the kit plus the builder's fee.
On the other hand, an already built kit, regardless of quality, is a second-hand product. It cannot be distinguished from a well-done, assembled kit on a flea market table.