claymore1977 wrote: BRAKIE wrote:Nuts! I was married and help raise 2 kids and worked on the C&O under Chessie banner in the process and still found some time to model..Having a family is a lame excuse as well as that great lie-no time.Believe it or not, there are people who are busier than you. Personally I think the family comment is very sad. I like to spend as much time as possible with my family. Since my kids are young, I spend my time with them and thus have no time to model. But if you chose a plastic model over your own flesh and blood, that's your choice. Since this is a public forum and open for comment, I find that choice borderline horrible.Following, people do hobbies because they find them fun. People have a right to have an opinion about other people. A person who berates another because this other person doesn't model in as great detail or use the same processes is, in my mind, the maturity level of a middle schooler. While we are slandering how someone else has fun with the hobby and their devotion to family, lets make fun of their shoes and how much they suck at kickball.Brakie, your comments have added ZERO value to this thread and I really hope you can see how immature they seem. Try to post your opinions like an adult and you might actually get listened to.
BRAKIE wrote:Nuts! I was married and help raise 2 kids and worked on the C&O under Chessie banner in the process and still found some time to model..Having a family is a lame excuse as well as that great lie-no time.
Believe it or not, there are people who are busier than you. Personally I think the family comment is very sad. I like to spend as much time as possible with my family. Since my kids are young, I spend my time with them and thus have no time to model. But if you chose a plastic model over your own flesh and blood, that's your choice. Since this is a public forum and open for comment, I find that choice borderline horrible.
Following, people do hobbies because they find them fun. People have a right to have an opinion about other people. A person who berates another because this other person doesn't model in as great detail or use the same processes is, in my mind, the maturity level of a middle schooler. While we are slandering how someone else has fun with the hobby and their devotion to family, lets make fun of their shoes and how much they suck at kickball.
Brakie, your comments have added ZERO value to this thread and I really hope you can see how immature they seem. Try to post your opinions like an adult and you might actually get listened to.
Clay The truth of the matter is one can find the time for their hobby but,folks hate to hear that..As your kids get older they will start pursuing their interest and leave mom and pop wondering what happen.Been there done that..Its called the teenage years.They will want no part of mom and dad during these years EXCEPT for money and the car keys.
Now Junior and little Maggie is doing their teenage things like we did..Whats are you going to do with your free time?
Family time will fade even the kids will find excuses not to hang with ma and pa.Simply put its no longer "cool" to hang with your parents when you can hang with your friends.
Immature comments? No..Just the cold hard truth and not the agreeable fluff answers that many seek to booster their own thoughts and needs.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
As this thread has gone a little off topic, I'd like to say thanks for the painting tips included here. The drafting tape is definitely something worth trying, and the microbrushes discussed are something I havn't used yet but will definitely try. I scratchbuild my structures unless kitbashing can be done and look appropriate but even so, most of the time the sctructure is built before I've decided how the painting will be done and these tips should make it a lot easier.
Separately, I find it a lot harder to get good morter detail in N scale without 1) putting too much paint on the model causing loss of detail, or 2) getting a poor paint job that looks nothing like real brick. I often opt for not painting the morter a different color and just using chalks to highlight the brick. Any other suggestions?
BRAKIE wrote:Clay The truth of the matter is one can find the time for their hobby but, folks hate to hear that..As your kids get older they will start pursuing their interest and leave mom and pop wondering what happen.Been there done that..Its called the teenage years.They will want no part of mom and dad during these years EXCEPT for money and the car keys.Now Junior and little Maggie is doing their teenage things like we did..Whats are you going to do with your free time?Family time will fade even the kids will find excuses not to hang with ma and pa.Simply put its no longer "cool" to hang with your parents when you can hang with your friends.Immature comments? No..Just the cold hard truth and not the agreeable fluff answers that many seek to booster their own thoughts and needs.
22 year old man, married & happy, no kids. But he is in the Navy and on the job 17 hours a day. That was me 6 years ago. I did that schedule 6 to 7 days a week for nearly 9 years and the desire was there, but I HAD NO TIME for the hobby. If you consider the few minutes I thought about it right before I went to sleep, then yes, you're correct and I found time for the hobby.
Cold hard truth? Negative. Cold hard opinion? Yes. You have lived YOUR life and no one else's therefore you are only qualified to speak about YOUR life and no one else's.
Even if your comments have truth to them, which I know they do in some (but definitely not all) cases, the sheer lack of tact you used made them appear immature. By doing so, you alienated your audience and removed any credibility your statements may have had.
That is all I was saying.
-Dave Loman
Dave Loman
My site: The Rusty Spike
"It's a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your 2 cents in.... hey, someone's making a penny!"
Shilshole wrote: I understand where you're coming from, having juggled 3 kids, graduate school, teaching appointments, consulting, professional societies, and volunteer work around what otherwise would have been more productive modeling time. But this: jecorbett wrote:But I am all for anything that lets me create more in less time....doesn't compute. You're not creating anything more in less time. Overseas laborers assembled your RTR and partially assembled equipment. You're choosing to pay for their skills and creation time, rather than develop your own skills on your own time. Nothing wrong with that, but just realize how much of the creative process you're transferring to someone else.And as far as this goes:And BTW, expensive craftsman kits are not an alternative for someone wanting to save time...They look great when finished but I don't consider the benefit worth the added time so I don't go for these kits anymore.On the contrary, those craftsman kits indeed are an alternative for your chosen form of the creative process. Check out the ads in MR and RMC for model builders, and pay for them to assemble the kits for you.
I understand where you're coming from, having juggled 3 kids, graduate school, teaching appointments, consulting, professional societies, and volunteer work around what otherwise would have been more productive modeling time. But this:
jecorbett wrote:But I am all for anything that lets me create more in less time.
And as far as this goes:
And BTW, expensive craftsman kits are not an alternative for someone wanting to save time...They look great when finished but I don't consider the benefit worth the added time so I don't go for these kits anymore.
On the contrary, those craftsman kits indeed are an alternative for your chosen form of the creative process. Check out the ads in MR and RMC for model builders, and pay for them to assemble the kits for you.
For me, the creative process is not in the building of the individual structures but in the way I arrange them on my layout and integrate them with my track work to create a layout that is truly unique. I do very little kitbashing and just about zero scratchbuilding. The structures on my layout are instantly recognizable to anyone who has spent any time in their LHS or browsed the structure section of the Walther's catalog. The only individual touch I usually put on them is in the way I paint and weather them. It doesn't matter to me that the same structure is probably on thousands of other layouts. It is unique on my layout. Structure building is a hobby within the hobby of model railroading. It is not the part of the hobby that appeals to me. It is a means to an end. I am more concerned with layout building and operating my layout. I want to do that in the least amount of time possible that will result in a good looking and smooth operating layout.
I understand that there are those in this hobby to whom structure building is extremely enjoyable and who take great pride in creating truly great works. I truly admire a beautifully assembled structure, whether it is scratchbuilt, kitbuilt, or kitbashed. But I don't want to invest the time required to achieve that level of excellence. The good-enough approach is good enough for me. If I were a millionaire and could afford to outsource the work of building the components of my layout, I would do so, but I don't have unlimited time or money so I have to strike a balance between how much of either I invest in my layout.
jecorbett wrote:If I were a millionaire and could afford to outsource the work of building the components of my layout, I would do so, but I don't have unlimited time or money so I have to strike a balance between how much of either I invest in my layout.
And in striking this balance, do you still have fun with the hobby?
OK everyone relax take a breather count to 10, let the blood pressure lower.
1. Ok so you think its a matter of just making the additional parts and attaching them to a sprue with parts on it already right? Well to be able to do that they need to re tool their dies to make those parts, a part of the sprue thats cash out of hand and not many companies will do it. They alreay spent lot of money on the originals.
I know your frustration about detail part painting and I'm not that big on it
I do however have a suggestion with every one saying paint it concrete color and mask the parts off you dont want brick color. There use to be liquid masking out by Walthers you would brush it on and paint around the area after it all dries you rub your finger over the area you used the liquid masking tape and the original color would still be there. You could also use liquid latex to do this infact I believe that is what liquid masking tape was / is. Now I dont know if Walthers still has it or not but give it a trie.
Milwhiawatha wrote: 1. Ok so you think its a matter of just making the additional parts and attaching them to a sprue with parts on it already right? Well to be able to do that they need to re tool their dies to make those parts, a part of the sprue thats cash out of hand and not many companies will do it. They alreay spent lot of money on the originals.
I have stated a number of times in this thread that I wouldn't expect the manufacturer to retool the molds for existing kits. I'm sure that wouldn't be cost effective. However as new kits are developed, making the detail parts individual pieces would be a big help to the structure building process given that detail painting probably takes up the lion's share of the time for this process.
In the business world, if one piece of a process was creating a bottleneck, the company would bring considerable resources to bear to eliminate that bottleneck and increase productivity. Since the manufacturers are not involved in the assembly process, they don't have a direct interest in eliminating this bottleneck. However, if they were made aware that it is a problem for their customers, some might choose to address it.
I don't have a ton of experience in detailing buildings, but in your(all in the thread) expert opinion, would a company have a large enough niche to sell just hyperdetailing parts for specific kits? Second idea: what if an existing company took their existing line of hyperdetailing parts and simply correlated them to various manufacurers kits, thus making it easier to find good ideas/ products for what you might be working on?
Just throwing that idea out on the table... comments?
cpeterson wrote:Separately, I find it a lot harder to get good morter detail in N scale without 1) putting too much paint on the model causing loss of detail, or 2) getting a poor paint job that looks nothing like real brick. I often opt for not painting the morter a different color and just using chalks to highlight the brick. Any other suggestions?
After spraying the brick surface with your chosen color and letting the paint dry, try adding dry Hydrocal or other powder plaster along the mortar joints (in N, I imaging that would be everywhere). Then wipe most of it off the brick surfaces with a damp rag.
jecorbett wrote:I have stated a number of times in this thread that I wouldn't expect the manufacturer to retool the molds for existing kits. I'm sure that wouldn't be cost effective. However as new kits are developed, making the detail parts individual pieces would be a big help to the structure building process given that detail painting probably takes up the lion's share of the time for this process. In the business world, if one piece of a process was creating a bottleneck, the company would bring considerable resources to bear to eliminate that bottleneck and increase productivity. Since the manufacturers are not involved in the assembly process, they don't have a direct interest in eliminating this bottleneck. However, if they were made aware that it is a problem for their customers, some might choose to address it.
I cant agree with you more about making them seperate parts. Now as for Walthers I know for a fact that they have people who test fit and build the buildings to make sure everything is right. I live not to far from them and use to know the guyg at the showroom and found out a lot of interesting things.
I cant agree with you moe about making them seperate parts. Now as for Walthers I know for a fact that they have people who test fit and build building to amek sure everything is right. I live not to far from them and use to know the guyg at the showroom and found out a lot of interesting things.
I just started reading this thread this morning. It's very entertaining. I had to stop and reply to this statement, however. I disagree completely that buying a bunch of stuff Ready-To-Run means you are creating more in less time. Does buying a painting and framing it mean you created the painting? You may be able to pile more stuff on the plywood in less time than someone who stratchbuilds everything, but that certainly doesn't mean you're creating more. It simply means you're creating at a different level.Your creation is the assembly rather than the detail parts of that assembly.
Ever watch any of those home shows on HGTV or DIY or Discovery Home? The home owners talk about how THEY did this and THEY did that, yadda yadda, then you find out that THEY hired a designer and a contractor, who did all the actual work. All THEY did was open their wallets. Some of what's posted here sounds similar.
Not that I'm criticizing how you chose to spend your model railroading time or money - to each his or her own in that regard, and no one can judge whether another is spending their time wisely or not, though so many try. But let's at least be honest with ourselves about it. (And no, I'm not saying that if you buy all RTR you're not a modeler - that's not my place or anyone else's).
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Brunton wrote: jecorbett wrote:But I am all for anything that lets me create more in less time.I just started reading this thread this morning. It's very entertaining. I had to stop and reply to this statement, however. I disagree completely that buying a bunch of stuff Ready-To-Run means you are creating more in less time. Does buying a painting and framing it mean you created the painting? You may be able to pile more stuff on the plywood in less time than someone who stratchbuilds everything, but that certainly doesn't mean you're creating more. It simply means you're creating at a different level.Your creation is the assembly rather than the detail parts of that assembly. Ever watch any of those home shows on HGTV or DIY or Discovery Home? The home owners talk about how THEY did this and THEY did that, yadda yadda, then you find out that THEY hired a designer and a contractor, who did all the actual work. All THEY did was open their wallets. Some of what's posted here sounds similar.Not that I'm criticizing how you chose to spend your model railroading time or money - to each his or her own in that regard, and no one can judge whether another is spending their time wisely or not, though so many try. But let's at least be honest with ourselves about it. (And no, I'm not saying that if you buy all RTR you're not a modeler - that's not my place or anyone else's).
See my reply to Shilshole regarding the creative process. I don't believe we need to scratchbuild or kitbash things to be creative. I think it is possible to be creative even with a layout composed entirely of RTR equipment and built up structures.
jecorbett wrote:See my reply to Shilshole regarding the creative process. I don't believe we need to scratchbuild or kitbash things to be creative. I think it is possible to be creative even with a layout composed entirely of RTR equipment and built up structures.
Yes, you were clear on your chosen form of the creative process. From what you wrote, it appears that you also consider adding individual touches to structures to be part of the creative process to achieve your 'good-enough' appearance. It seems to me that the issue here is your certainty regarding what constitutes good enough in your own eyes, manifest by the fact that structure-kit manufacturers (and perhaps others?) haven't reached a level of what you consider to be good enough at a reasonable price. If that's the issue, then I can see at least two low-cost solutions: invest a little more time in developing the painting/detailing skills necessary to accomplish your current good enough appearance (using, for example, some of the recommendations in this thread or in the hobby press), or reconsider what in fact is good enough within your overall modeling interests and objectives. A third solution, waiting for kit manufacturers to provide your ideal kit, won't be inexpensive or immediate. I'm sympathetic to your original rant, although from the opposite direction. With RTR rolling stock becoming the norm, it's difficult to find high quality plastic kits, such as IM or RC, for modification to meet my version of good enough. In response, I've had to develop disassembly skills. Yes, it's a ridiculous situation, but it's just one more problem-solving skill and an adjustment to reality that my good-enough objective requires.
Shilshole wrote: It seems to me that the issue here is your certainty regarding what constitutes good enough in your own eyes, manifest by the fact that structure-kit manufacturers (and perhaps others?) haven't reached a level of what you consider to be good enough at a reasonable price. If that's the issue, then I can see at least two low-cost solutions: invest a little more time in developing the painting/detailing skills necessary to accomplish your current good enough appearance (using, for example, some of the recommendations in this thread or in the hobby press), or reconsider what in fact is good enough within your overall modeling interests and objectives. A third solution, waiting for kit manufacturers to provide your ideal kit, won't be inexpensive or immediate.
It seems to me that the issue here is your certainty regarding what constitutes good enough in your own eyes, manifest by the fact that structure-kit manufacturers (and perhaps others?) haven't reached a level of what you consider to be good enough at a reasonable price. If that's the issue, then I can see at least two low-cost solutions: invest a little more time in developing the painting/detailing skills necessary to accomplish your current good enough appearance (using, for example, some of the recommendations in this thread or in the hobby press), or reconsider what in fact is good enough within your overall modeling interests and objectives. A third solution, waiting for kit manufacturers to provide your ideal kit, won't be inexpensive or immediate.
I have the skills necessary to accomplish the good-enough appearance. I have done it many times. My gripe is that it takes much longer than should be necessary to accomplish that goal. I think it is only logical that parts that need to be painted differently should not be molded together. If that were to be done, a job that now takes hours to complete could be done in a matter of minutes.
The issue that jecorbett is raising here is not one of creativity but efficiency. He's not outsourcing his modeling work to laborers in China or having others do things for him. He's simply suggesting a design change in the way a kit is put together to make it more efficient to paint and assemble. The end product is the same and has nothing to do with standards or the creative process, etc.
This line of thinking that anything that takes more time is somehow better really doesn't make any sense at all. Is a kit where the walls aren't beveled and there are lots of molding marks and flash to correct really a more difficult, more realistic kit or just a poorly designed kit that wastes a lot of my time? A high tolerance for tedium does not make you an artist.
jecorbett wrote:I have the skills necessary to accomplish the good-enough appearance.
But not the skills to accomplish your good enough within your self-imposed time constraints. That's a characteristic most of us share in one modeling aspect or another.
I think it is only logical that parts that need to be painted differently should not be molded together.
Yes, it sounds logical, and one could wish that manufacturers had designed kits like this from the beginning. It's also logical that doing so will also increase the cost to manufacture and therefore the cost to the modeler; compare, for example, the cost of blue-box kits with molded-on detail vs. IM or RC kits with separate details. You have already stated that cost is a factor in what you're trying to accomplish. It sounds like it's now time to consider a compromise between what you consider to be good enough and what you're willing to pay.
If that were to be done, a job that now takes hours to complete could be done in a matter of minutes.
Sure, but others may enjoy the challenge offered at a lower cost and develop methods that reduce the time involved in achieving their good-enough objective.
whitman500 wrote:This line of thinking that anything that takes more time is somehow better really doesn't make any sense at all. Is a kit where the walls aren't beveled and there are lots of molding marks and flash to correct really a more difficult, more realistic kit or just a poorly designed kit that wastes a lot of my time? A high tolerance for tedium does not make you an artist.
Actually, if you read his posts and responses to them, you'll see that no one raised a 'more-time-is-better' issue. It's simply a case of jecorbett's time conflicting with his budget and creative standards.
I guess I'm just lucky to have a small layout. I've been building for about 2 years now, and at this rate, I figure I've got about another year before it's "presentation ready," since no layout is ever really "finished." Also, I've found that I enjoy just about every aspect of the hobby, although I'll admit that ballasting has gotten kind of tedious, and there's still a lot more to do.
So, I can take my time. I don't have any deadlines, and I'm not pushing myself to meet any schedule, even for a small task. I've got a number of half-done jobs, and I get to each in time. My goals are realistic, and I don't carry any "on-time ethic" home from work at night. I enjoy painting details, but I'll admit that I'm just as happy to open a kit and find separate window frames that I can do "the easy way" and then put them into the walls.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Shilshole wrote: jecorbett wrote:I have the skills necessary to accomplish the good-enough appearance.But not the skills to accomplish your good enough within your self-imposed time constraints. That's a characteristic most of us share in one modeling aspect or another.
I don't think anyone has the skills to do detail painting in a short amount of time. I'm sure there are others that are more skilled than I am and have a better method for doing the detail painting but I doubt there is anyone who has the skills or the method to accomplish this task as quickly as it could be done if the kits were designed as I have suggested. On a large kit, we are talking about hours of work that could instead be done in minutes.
I don't have self-imposed time constraints. I take the time that is necessary to do the job. But I also recognize that there is a potential for a great deal of time savings at a modest increase in cost. In all facets of our lives, innovations are made that allow people to accomplish more in less time. Why should model railroading be any different?
I know I've said this before, but I feel like this is an important point.
I believe that many of the revered craftsman of the past (i.e., the "good old days") did what they did because there were no other options. They scratchbuilt steam engines, structures, etc., because what was available, for the most part, was no better, no easier, or less time-consuming than doing it themselves. Many of them (of course not all) would probably have jumped at a BLI steamer, considered a pre-built building if it came close to one they needed, or maybe even considered Kato Unitrack - had those been available back then.
Time is a tough thing to manage. I know. I'm a father of two young children, a PhD student, and an Air Force officer. I get it all done, though, even the layout. I'm very happy with what I'm able to do when I have time to do it. I personally don't think the manufacturers owe me anything more (except some darned Pennsy N scale steam engines!!!).
Actually, I like the challenge of having to add my own touch (i.e., detail painting) to an otherwise ubiquitous structure kit.
CAUTION: This is my opinion. Yours may differ!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
jecorbett wrote:I don't think anyone has the skills to do detail painting in a short amount of time.
Sure they do, depending on what they consider to be good enough. Masking and spraying followed by touch up, I think mentioned in this thread, is a skill that saves a lot of time and yields excellent results.
I'm sure there are others that are more skilled than I am and have a better method for doing the detail painting but I doubt there is anyone who has the skills or the method to accomplish this task as quickly as it could be done if the kits were designed as I have suggested. On a large kit, we are talking about hours of work that could instead be done in minutes.
I don't think that's in dispute. Also not in dispute is that it will cost more to the manufacturer, who will pass that additonal cost along to the modeler.
I don't have self-imposed time constraints.
No one else is setting a limit on you for what should be considered a reasonable amount of time to spend on achieving what you consider to be good-enough. It's your choice.
I take the time that is necessary to do the job. But I also recognize that there is a potential for a great deal of time savings at a modest increase in cost. In all facets of our lives, innovations are made that allow people to accomplish more in less time. Why should model railroading be any different?
Excuse me, but are you claiming that there are no innovations for efficiency in the hobby? No laser- cut wood kits with peel-and-stick parts and tabbed assembly? No partially assembled "Timesaver" plastic kits with excellent detail and appropriate paint schemes? No RTR exquisitely detailed and painted Kadee rolling stock? All of those were introduced to accomplish efficiency, and they all come with a cost premium.
Should a manufacturer determine that s/he can live with fewer unit sales at a higher price to modelers, then I expect that your recommendation will be followed.
Dave Vollmer wrote: I know I've said this before, but I feel like this is an important point.I believe that many of the revered craftsman of the past (i.e., the "good old days") did what they did because there were no other options. They scratchbuilt steam engines, structures, etc., because what was available, for the most part, was no better, no easier, or less time-consuming than doing it themselves. Many of them (of course not all) would probably have jumped at a BLI steamer, considered a pre-built building if it came close to one they needed, or maybe even considered Kato Unitrack - had those been available back then.Time is a tough thing to manage. I know. I'm a father of two young children, a PhD student, and an Air Force officer. I get it all done, though, even the layout. I'm very happy with what I'm able to do when I have time to do it. I personally don't think the manufacturers owe me anything more (except some darned Pennsy N scale steam engines!!!).Actually, I like the challenge of having to add my own touch (i.e., detail painting) to an otherwise ubiquitous structure kit.CAUTION: This is my opinion. Yours may differ!
Dave,
I don't think the manufacturers owe us anything either but if they want our dollars, they need to keep us happy. I am a believer in the adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and if enough of us squeak, the manufacturers might listen.
I understand that there are a lot of modelers who don't mind the tedious task of painting detail in place and even find it enjoyable. I would be willing to bet though they if most of them had their choice, they would prefer to paint the detail as separate parts and then attach it to the structure. I suppose if someone real enjoys painting the detail in place, they could always attach it and then paint it. Do you think anyone would take that step?
jecorbett wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: I know I've said this before, but I feel like this is an important point.I believe that many of the revered craftsman of the past (i.e., the "good old days") did what they did because there were no other options. They scratchbuilt steam engines, structures, etc., because what was available, for the most part, was no better, no easier, or less time-consuming than doing it themselves. Many of them (of course not all) would probably have jumped at a BLI steamer, considered a pre-built building if it came close to one they needed, or maybe even considered Kato Unitrack - had those been available back then.Time is a tough thing to manage. I know. I'm a father of two young children, a PhD student, and an Air Force officer. I get it all done, though, even the layout. I'm very happy with what I'm able to do when I have time to do it. I personally don't think the manufacturers owe me anything more (except some darned Pennsy N scale steam engines!!!).Actually, I like the challenge of having to add my own touch (i.e., detail painting) to an otherwise ubiquitous structure kit.CAUTION: This is my opinion. Yours may differ!Dave, I don't think the manufacturers owe us anything either but if they want our dollars, they need to keep us happy. I am a believer in the adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and if enough of us squeak, the manufacturers might listen.I understand that there are a lot of modelers who don't mind the tedious task of painting detail in place and even find it enjoyable. I would be willing to bet though they if most of them had their choice, they would prefer to paint the detail as separate parts and then attach it to the structure. I suppose if someone real enjoys painting the detail in place, they could always attach it and then paint it. Do you think anyone would take that step?
I might. After all, if the part is small enough, and then after painting it I try to glue it to the wall, the glue will probably mar the paint. I guess it depends on the situation.
Shilshole wrote: I take the time that is necessary to do the job. But I also recognize that there is a potential for a great deal of time savings at a modest increase in cost. In all facets of our lives, innovations are made that allow people to accomplish more in less time. Why should model railroading be any different?Excuse me, but are you claiming that there are no innovations for efficiency in the hobby? No laser- cut wood kits with peel-and-stick parts and tabbed assembly? No partially assembled "Timesaver" plastic kits with excellent detail and appropriate paint schemes? No RTR exquisitely detailed and painted Kadee rolling stock? All of those were introduced to accomplish efficiency, and they all come with a cost premium.Should a manufacturer determine that s/he can live with fewer unit sales at a higher price to modelers, then I expect that your recommendation will be followed.
Excuse me, you are putting words in my mouth. At no time have I suggested that we haven't had innovation in this hobby. On the contrary, we have had many innovations, all of which saved the customer time, cost the manufacturers more to produce, and the cost of which was passed on to the customer. I have suggested one more such innovation. I have a hard time understanding the resistance to this idea. Since I started this thread, the main objection I have seen to it has been that it will add cost to the kits. Of course it will. Innovations do cost money and the consumer pays for them. Willingly!!!
When the rotary saw was invented, there were probably those who griped that it would cost the manufacturers more to produce than the handsaw and would be passed on to the customer. There were probably some who said they didn't mind sawing wood by hand. Today, do you think there is a contractor out there that doesn't have one. Even the Amish use power tools. They know the added cost is more than made up for by the efficiency that is achieved.
jecorbett wrote: Shilshole wrote: I take the time that is necessary to do the job. But I also recognize that there is a potential for a great deal of time savings at a modest increase in cost. In all facets of our lives, innovations are made that allow people to accomplish more in less time. Why should model railroading be any different?Excuse me, but are you claiming that there are no innovations for efficiency in the hobby? No laser- cut wood kits with peel-and-stick parts and tabbed assembly? No partially assembled "Timesaver" plastic kits with excellent detail and appropriate paint schemes? No RTR exquisitely detailed and painted Kadee rolling stock? All of those were introduced to accomplish efficiency, and they all come with a cost premium.Should a manufacturer determine that s/he can live with fewer unit sales at a higher price to modelers, then I expect that your recommendation will be followed.Excuse me, you are putting words in my mouth. At no time have I suggested that we haven't had innovation in this hobby.
Excuse me, you are putting words in my mouth. At no time have I suggested that we haven't had innovation in this hobby.
Try again; the issue was innovation in achieving efficiency. Are you now claiming that when you wrote, from above:
jecorbett wrote:In all facets of our lives, innovations are made that allow people to accomplish more in less time. Why should model railroading be any different?
...you were actually suggesting that model railroading isn't different from other facets of our lives regarding innovation to achieve efficiency?
On the contrary, we have had many innovations, all of which saved the customer time, cost the manufacturers more to produce, and the cost of which was passed on to the customer. I have suggested one more such innovation. I have a hard time understanding the resistance to this idea.
Well, maybe it's because No one is resisting the idea! It's a good one!! We're only pointing out why manufacturers might resist the idea and some of the consequences of implementing it!!1!
Since I started this thread, the main objection I have seen to it has been that it will add cost to the kits. Of course it will. Innovations do cost money and the consumer pays for them. Willingly!!!
Some will. Some won't. Some don't care about modeling time, while others don't care about cost.
I suppose that would be relevant if model railroaders considered their hobby to be a business like contractors. For most of us, it's a leisure time activity. We adjust our schedules and budgets to accomodate what we individually consider to be important and what's offered by manufacturers.
Well, Shilshole, read some of Brakie's early replies to my post and then tell me no one has been resistant to my suggestion. He was definitely the most adamant but he certainly hasn't been the only naysayer.
As things stand now, we have low priced kits, such as DPM in which all the detail is molded on. They are basically four walls, a roof, and some window glazing. They are ideal for someone who wants inexpensive kits and doesn't mind spending the extra time painting all the detail. We have others, such as most of the Walthers line, in which some of the detail, such as window casings, comes as separate parts while other detail is molded to the wall. Certainly, painting the window casings separately and then gluing them to the back of the walls takes less time to do well than with the DPM type structures which require the casings be carefully painted. I have suggested a third alternative in which all the detail parts come as separate pieces. I believe it would cost slightly more and save a lot of time. The more choices we have the better. ( Let's not get into craftsman kits because that's a whole different ballgame).
I am not an engineer and I cannot say with certainty that my suggestion is practical. Based on the fact that some detail parts can be cast separately, it seems to me they could all be done that way with only a modest increase in the cost of the kits. If someone can point out a reason why what I am suggesting can't be done in a cost effective manner, that would make sense to me.
Lastly, I most certainly was not saying we haven't had innovations in this hobby when I asked the question, "Why should model railroading be any different?". It was a rhetorical question. If you will read my earlier posts, I pointed out a number of innovations we have had over the years. I asked the question of those who were resistant to the idea of another time saving innovation because of the potential for increased cost.
jecorbett wrote:Well, Shilshole, read some of Brakie's early replies to my post and then tell me no one has been resistant to my suggestion. He was definitely the most adamant but he certainly hasn't been the only naysayer.
Heck, Brakie's sour in most posts.
By my reckoning, the only naysayer has been the aforementioned poster. The rest have been at least neutral, some offering painting/masking advice or their own experiences, others (including one detail parts manufacturer) offering insights regarding manufacturers' likely positions.
Reread MTennent's post, for one. Manufacturers have to anticipate recovering their costs and making a profit. They also have to compete with other manufacturers for the hobby dollar. Some manufacturers already provide some detail parts on separate runners. They have a small share of the structure market. The kit format that you would like to see, to accommodate your creative constraints, would occupy an even smaller share of the market for at least two reasons: (1) increased cost (which you would be willing to pay but many others wouldn't), and (2) resistance to the added assembly time because of all those "itty-bitty" parts that others on this forum have complained about (cf. rivet counter threads). I think it's likely that, given manufacturers' habit of jumping on new ideas to increase profits, your idea already has been considered by some manufacturer and discarded or shelved, perhaps to resurface when market conditions are more attractive to them.
Lastly, I most certainly was not saying we haven't had innovations in this hobby when I asked the question, "Why should model railroading be any different?". It was a rhetorical question.
Again, the issue addressed by your question was innovation to foster efficiency in modeling, not general innovation. And that particular rhetorical question was a weak diversion from an otherwise reasonable position.
I've kept my mouth shut on this thread until now (and I will probably regret opening it). I don't really have an oar in this one because the only structure kits I have personally assembled were from Campbell - although I have some Woodland Scenics and Model Power waiting to be built.
It seems to me that the essence of jecorbett's rant was that he wanted plastic model structure manufacturers to make their kits differently to better suit his desires, skills, and time. It's a common complaint, though usually about locomotives and/or cars. Myself, I'd love to see the return of die cast loco kits featuring some 1880-1900 prototypes - in both HO and HOn3 if you please. A little bit presumptuous on my part, but that's my desire.
And that's my whole problem with this thread.
Modelers are spread across the spectrum in what they model, how they model, and what they expect.
Those who model a popular prototype in a popular era in HO have a great variety of kits, RTR, detail parts, and supplies available to them. So much so that they "rant" when the kit/RTR is not at the amount of separate parts they want, or didn't follow the prototype closely enough, or costs too much.
At the other extreme, in the minority scales, gauges, eras, and prototypes, talented modelers are encouraged to do a small production run of critical parts that they fabricate/cast to sell to the rest of the community. In HOn3, we were looking at various ways to put together the critical parts for a pre-1900 4-4-0 that would run well (and could be used in a later era with some alternate details). This type of one-man shop serving a minority scale, prototype, or era is quite common outside the mainstream HO and N production.
The larger mainstream manufacturers (who are still small by any normal business standards) have to trade off price, ease of assembly and use, and level of detail/performance to best serve their defined market. If they miss the mark, they lose money. My personal feeling - yours may differ - that unless you are willing to directly work with and assist a manufacturer in some aspect, whether it be marketing, advance ordering/investing, supplying prototype info, etc., it's a little presumptuous to be ranting on a forum that a manufacturer should make things the way you think is best. If you are not going to involve yourself in the manufacturing process, then your "vote" is limited to your $$.
my thoughts, your choices
"Hit me with your best shot, fire away..."
Fred W
I was going to let this dog lie but my expierience with my latest effort, Walther's American Hardware Supply structure convinced me that my proposal, to make the detail on structure walls as separate parts, is something that could be done at a minimal cost and would be a tremendous timesaver when assembling plastic kits. This structure is a large warehouse with concrete post and beams and brick between the post and beams. This is a common type of construction both in the prototype and modeling world and similar in construction to the Geo. Roberts Printing Co. that triggered my original post in this thread. The AHS kit has much more ornate Art Deco columns on the front and corner wall sections. I argued that by making the brick fields as separate castings, they could be painted separately and assembled in far less time than they could be painted in place, regardless of the method for painting them.
Well, the American Hardward Supply kit has just what I suggested, although on a very limited basis. The lower level sections on the end walls have three different types of brick inserts to allow the modeler to choose between a solid brick surface, a loading dock door, or the same type of windows that are used on the upper floors. Obviously, this demonstrates that what I am suggesting could be easily be done for all the brick surfaces at a minimal added cost. If it were tremendously difficult or expensive to design the structure in this fashion, they would not have done it just to give the modeler different options for these wall sections.
At the suggestion of one of the replies, I decided to see if I could speed the detail painting process by masking and spraying as opposed to hand painting the detail. I found this worked well on the very simple, fairly flat rear walls of the kit and I would estimate it reduced the time by about a third. However, this still makes it a much more lengthy process than it would be if the detail parts were cast separately. While the masking technique was a timesaver for the rear walls, I determined that it was not feasible on the more ornate front and corner walls. Some of the brick surfaces were as small a 3/16" by 1/4' (estimate). Masking these tiny sections would have taken far longer than it did to just hand paint them. These small brick fields were on the corner wall sections and were three across. How much easier it would have been to mold these 3 sections onto a single part to be inserted from behind the wall. The window castings were made in this manner to the same tight tolerances that would have been required to for the brick inserts.
The bottom line is that what I am proposing is not technically difficult nor expensive or it would not have been done on a limited basis for the AHS kit. It could just as well be incorporated into kits designed in the future and would be a great timesaver for all modelers. Whether the kit makers choose to take this step is up to them. Any kit maker who does choose to make this enhancement is going to gain a competetive edge over those who continue to do it the old way. I've said my peace on this subject. Flame away if you want.