 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2004Shake-the-box meets Intermountain.
Started working on my unbuilt kit backlog. Some how I buy 'em faster than I build 'em. I found I had two meat reefer kits, both painted for National Packing Company. So I thought it might be fun to build them side by side and compare. One was an up to date Intermountain kit, the other was early Branchline, a custom paint job on an Athearn kit. For $12.95 the Intermountain is a very nice kit, full brake rigging, separately applied ladders, grab irons, tack boards, the works. The stirrups are lacy and thin, the ice hatch hinges and latches are delicate and just about every detail imaginable is there. Building it is quite satisfying. The Branchline/Athearn kit ($10 originally, marked down to $5) is less sophisticated. Details are cast on, the under carriage detailing is spartan, the cast on stirrups are thick and durable, the ice hatches hinges and latches are overscale. Shake the box and it goes together. I gave both cars good wheels, spray painted the trucks with red auto primer and the undercarriage gray, just to equalize things. Coupled together the simple Branchline/Athearn looks pretty good next to it's finer detailed cousin. There is a noticeable different in the paint color, the Intermountain is a very saturated orange, yielding a fresh-out-of-the-paintshop look. The Branchline orange is toned down a bit, and looks like a car that hat been out in the sun for a couple of seasons since leaving the paint shop. Branchline used a flatter paint. The Intermountain paint almost wants some Dullcote. All in all, the older and less sophisticated kit looks pretty good, especially on the layout and a couple of feet away from the eye. David J. Starr > Started working on my unbuilt kit backlog. Some how I buy 'em > faster than I build 'em. I found I had two meat reefer kits, both [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > David J. Starr I run the latest P2K boxcars side by side in the same train with 1950's hobbyline and Athearn metal cars, the average person seeing the train go by can't tell the difference. Don -- don.dellmann@prodigy.net http://www.geocities.com/don_dellmann moderator: WisModelersAid@yahoogroups.com moderator: MRPics@yahoogroups.com moderator: vintageHO@yahoogroups.com co-moderator: SCENERY@Yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MRPics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vintageHO "Trainman" < > I run the latest P2K boxcars side by side in the same train with 1950's > hobbyline and Athearn metal cars, the average person seeing the train go by > can't tell the difference. Right on. You can add craftsman kits into the mix as well. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ >"Trainman" < > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Home of the Great Eastern Railway >http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ You need to set priorities with things like details. It is disheartning to put many hours and much money into a contest quality car for operation on an operations oriented model railway and then see it damaged by what is really nothing more than normal wear and tear. it is better to have a less costly fleet of moderately detailed cars if your main focus is on intense operation with a lot of switching and "handling" of cars. I don't mean handling by human hands, I mean doing more than watching prestaged trains orbit the railroad. Froggy@The wrote: > You need to set priorities with things like details. My priority is to have detailed and accurate rollingstock to complement my detailed and accurate locomotives. > It is disheartening to put many hours and much money into a contest > quality car for operation on an operations oriented model railway and > then see it damaged by what is really nothing more than normal wear > and tear. I accept the repairs necessitated by wear and tear as the price I pay for having detailed rollingstock. As I've said before, I'd rather have a small to mid-sized fleet of detailed locos and cars, than a huge collection of shake-the-box stuff. My choice. > Froggy@The wrote: > > > You need to set priorities with things like details. > > My priority is to have detailed and accurate rollingstock to complement > my detailed and accurate locomotives. Do you change the HO wheels to proto 87? Your priority is accurate rollingstock and locomotives. > > It is disheartening to put many hours and much money into a contest > > quality car for operation on an operations oriented model railway and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > small to mid-sized fleet of detailed locos and cars, than a huge > collection of shake-the-box stuff. My choice. In the past Mark has claimed to be working in O gauge NSWGT, now it's back to US HO. Sounds more like a collection sitting on a shelf rather than equipment for an operating layout.  SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > In the past Mark has claimed to be working in O gauge NSWGT, now it's > back to US HO. Sounds more like a collection sitting on a shelf > rather than equipment for an operating layout. If you have anything to say, do so via e-mail, or in person. I'm not wasting any more time trading slurs and insults with you on any newsgroup. Likewise, if you want to see my layouts, come and visit me, as I have suggested previously. The ball is in your court. > > In the past Mark has claimed to be working in O gauge NSWGT, now it's > > back to US HO. Sounds more like a collection sitting on a shelf [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > newsgroup. Likewise, if you want to see my layouts, come and visit me, > as I have suggested previously. The ball is in your court. why do you wish your work to be hidden in personal email? A craftsman of your quality should share his work. Please give us a list of places we can view your artistic endeavors. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm >> If you have anything to say, do so via e-mail, or in person. I'm >> not wasting any more time trading slurs and insults with you on any >> newsgroup. Likewise, if you want to see my layouts, come and visit >> me, as I have suggested previously. The ball is in your court. > why do you wish your work to be hidden in personal email? I do not wish to become involved in another pointless round of trading insults with Flynn. He has had repeated invitations to come and visit me, and see my layouts in person. I am not about to devote time and effort to creating a website merely to satisfy Flynn's demands that I do so. Nor yours. > >> If you have anything to say, do so via e-mail, or in person. I'm > >> not wasting any more time trading slurs and insults with you on any [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > effort to creating a website merely to satisfy Flynn's demands that I do > so. Nor yours. You do not need a website, simply log on to either www.railroad-line.com or www.the-gauge.com start a topic and post your pictures. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm >>I do not wish to become involved in another pointless round of trading >>insults with Flynn. He has had repeated invitations to come and visit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > start a topic and post your pictures. You don't get it, Will. If I choose to publish any of my work, it will be because I decide to do so, not because you or anybody else demands I do so. > You don't get it, Will. If I choose to publish any of my work, it will > be because I decide to do so, not because you or anybody else demands I > do so. OK, Mark, no problem, when you feel your work is up to the level of the others who have posted, then you can post some pics. We should not force you or pick on you because you feel your stuff is not up to par. I am sorry. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > OK, Mark, no problem, when you feel your work is up to the level of > the others who have posted, then you can post some pics. No worries. And when you have something more to show than 6 feet of cork roadbed and a badly drawn trackplan, you can do likewise. > We should not force you or pick on you because you feel your stuff is > not up to par. I'm quite happy with the standard of my work. Unlike those who apparently feel they have something to prove, or need the approval of others... > > OK, Mark, no problem, when you feel your work is up to the level of > > the others who have posted, then you can post some pics. > > No worries. And when you have something more to show than 6 feet of cork > roadbed and a badly drawn trackplan, you can do likewise. I already have more than 6 feet of cork, what about you Mark. Why don't you tell us about your layout here? What are the names of the 3 layouts you claim to have exhibited? No web page or photos required. > > We should not force you or pick on you because you feel your stuff is > > not up to par. > > I'm quite happy with the standard of my work. Unlike those who > apparently feel they have something to prove, or need the approval of > others... Mark the expert web page designer has no web page yet criticises others web pages. So far marks displayed skills are 0. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Mark the expert web page designer has no web page yet criticises > others web pages. So far marks displayed skills are 0. Mark the experienced and quite talented graphic designer has designed numerous webpages for clients, and is quite comfortable criticising the clumsy and amateurish efforts of others, such as yours, and the moose rooters... > > Mark the expert web page designer has no web page yet criticises > > others web pages. So far marks displayed skills are 0. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > clumsy and amateurish efforts of others, such as yours, and the moose > rooters... Where are the URL's Mark? Now your an expert graphic artist. If you are a graphic artist, why do you work in the maintaince section of our local railway, as described in a earlier post. If you are expert at web pages, where is yours? SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Where are the URL's Mark? Now your an expert graphic artist. My fucken oath I am. Here's one for starters: http://www.countrylink.info/train/index.html A link to my portfolio will follow shortly. > If you are a graphic artist, why do you work in the maintaince > section of our local railway, as described in a earlier post. I do both. > If you are expert at web pages, where is yours? I don't have one. Care to make something of that? If I decide to put one up, I'll be sure to seek your approval. In the meantime, I could help you to improve that ghastly looking excuse for a web page you have... > > Where are the URL's Mark? Now your an expert graphic artist. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > meantime, I could help you to improve that ghastly looking excuse for a > web page you have... The web page you claim to have designed is a classic useless web page as far as function goes, it's full of everything except what the customer of Country link requires, a contact number so you can make a booking and a timetable and fare structure. If these are on the web your useless web page for the customer does not link to these. The information is interesting for the rail enthusiast, except the XPT info is out of date. What a waste a time your first page is, a couple of pretty pictures, no instructions, hardly user friendly for the average customer. Classic government organisation fluff. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > The web page you claim to have designed is a classic useless web page > as far as function goes, it's full of everything except what the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of pretty pictures, no instructions, hardly user friendly for the > average customer. Classic government organisation fluff. No, no, no, sorry - that's not how it works. According to YOUR rules, one may not criticise another's work unless one has produced a similar work of equal or better quality. So kindly post the URL of any web pages you have designed for government organisations or the like. > The web page you claim to have designed is a classic useless web page > as far as function goes, it's full of everything except what the > customer of Country link requires, a contact number so you can make a > booking and a timetable and fare structure. None of which is it's purpose. It is a sub-page of: http://www.countrylink.info/ which contains all booking and fare information. > If these are on the web your useless web page for the customer does > not link to these. See above. The customer arrives at this page via links from the home page. I believe that this method has been used once or twice before... > The information is interesting for the rail enthusiast The information is not intended for the rail enthusiast, it is to inform CountryLink passengers of the amenities and facilities on board. > What a waste a time your first page is, a couple of pretty pictures, > no instructions, Except the instruction to: "Select XPT or Xplorer..." Is that not an instruction? Having selected either graphic, the cursor changes to indicate a link, which is a reasonably familiar convention on the web... > hardly user friendly for the average customer. The average customer has no difficulty using this page. I suppose that means you are not an average customer. > Classic government organisation fluff. Classic sook from the big sook. Sook, sook, sook. There's nothing quite like the taste of sour grapes, is there? > ...I found I had two meat reefer kits, both > painted for National Packing Company. So I thought it might be fun to > build them side by side and compare. One was an up to date > Intermountain kit, the other was early Branchline, a custom paint job on > an Athearn kit. >snip< > All in all, the older and less sophisticated kit looks pretty good, > especially on the layout and a couple of feet away from the eye. > > David J. Starr ```````` I made a similar discovery. I bought a few of the Intermountain RTR reefers in Morrell paint as they were a customer of the Q' near the area I'm planning to model. While digging through some of my, as yet, unbuilt kits I discovered good old Athearn makes the same in a kit (at least it looks like the same car, which is "good enough" for me). As you mention, the main difference between the two is in the paint, and also the size of the herald in this case. I wish I had recalled the Athearn model's existence before I spent $22.35 a crack on the Intermountains. The price on the Athearn is only $5.00! I consider myself more of a model railroader than a railroad modeler, so the Athearn kit has much more value to my needs...it's "good enough". But also to me the minor difference in appearance between the two does not come close to justifying the major difference in their respective prices. This is another reason I make no apologies for calling myself a "good enougher" and consider the skyrocketing, out of proportion prices in recent years of these so called "highly detailed" models to be exhorbitant. Therefore, I tend to pass them over when purchasing rolling stock for my layout. Many others, obviously see it differently. I guess to each their own. Paul - "The CB&Q Guy" In Illinois - *USA* Interestingly, so far, no one has defended the "high dollar" cars... dlm > Started working on my unbuilt kit backlog. <snip> > All in all, the older and less sophisticated kit looks pretty good, > especially on the layout and a couple of feet away from the eye. > > David J. Starr Because every time they do, they get criticized as being rivet counters. If you can't tell the difference, ok for you but I'm not building my layout and models to fool others. I know the difference and that is part of the enjoyment of the hobby to me. Stop defending mediocrity! > Interestingly, so far, no one has defended the "high dollar" cars... > > dlm Striking a balance between quality & cost hardly seems like defending mediocrity. I, for one, don't want to see our hobby become one for elitists. There was a time when you could go to the hobby shop and with about $75, get a oval of nice track, a small but adequate power pack, a "good" Athearn engine and a few cars. Now, that same $75 can get quickly eaten up with the purchase of just a few cars and it certainly won't cover what we now consider even an "average" engine. One doesn't need an expensive Nikon to take great pictures, one doesn't need the most expensive woodworking tools to make good furniture, one doesn't need a hand-carved ivory chess set to be a good chess player and I should think that one doesn't need to have the most expensive rolling stock kits to have anything better than a mediocre layout. The skills of the modeler will make a much greater impact than the quality of the models he or she buys. Or, to put it another way, in the hands of a master, even the cheapest violin will make beautiful music. dlm > Because every time they do, they get criticized as being rivet counters. If > you can't tell the difference, ok for you but I'm not building my layout and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > dlm Good point and from that view, I must agree. I didn't intend to sound elitist but I can see how it might be taken that way. But I do insist on a fairly high level of detail and just can't agree with the "good enough" crowd. Everyone has their comfort level and approach to the hobby. We might be considered cry babies, whiners or whatever but I dare say the rivit counters are what's led the industry to the current crop of high level models to be enjoyed by ALL. Your comments on skills are well taken but UNLESS some effort is taken and skill demomstrated, NO product is going to produce the best results but at least the high end stuff will get you a little closer. Jerry in Fla > Striking a balance between quality & cost hardly seems like defending > mediocrity. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > dlm > Good point and from that view, I must agree. I didn't intend to sound > elitist but I can see how it might be taken that way. But I do insist on a > fairly high level of detail and just can't agree with the "good enough" > crowd. But I would suggest that the whole hobby is based on "good enough." Otherwise, we would only be satisfied with true scale sized layouts with no selective compression, fast clodks or any of the other model tricks that we use to create our own miniature worlds. There is nothing wrong with any of those things; it's just that it seems to be a part of the hobby that we have accepted and work around. dlm > But I would suggest that the whole hobby is based on "good enough." > Otherwise, we would only be satisfied with true scale sized layouts > with no selective compression, fast clodks or any of the other model > tricks that we use to create our own miniature worlds. There is > nothing wrong with any of those things; it's just that it seems to be > a part of the hobby that we have accepted and work around. An interesting point, and one well made. I hadn't considered that the compromises you mention were examples of "good enough", but of course, they are. So I will have to give some thought as to why I am prepared to accept <these> compromises, but not others, such as the rolling stock. > > > > But I would suggest that the whole hobby is based on "good enough." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they are. So I will have to give some thought as to why I am prepared to > accept <these> compromises, but not others, such as the rolling stock. As an expert you should have already known these basic truths about the hobby, especially before you started criticising the skills of modellers posting on this group. I'm am still waiting for an answer as to wether you change the wheels to proto87 . SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Striking a balance between quality & cost hardly seems like defending > mediocrity. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Or, to put it another way, in the hands of a master, even the cheapest > violin will make beautiful music. Very true, Dan. Plus the fact that the rolling stock is only one small part of a layout. You can have the best looking boxcar going, it can be 100% prototypical BUT, put it on a layout that does not have the scenery completed and to me it still looks silly going around. Also if the scenery is not done well, it detracts from the rolling stock. A case in point. In the latest Narrow Guage & Short Line Gazette, they have a 6 page article from Lowell Ross. "Galena, Colorado An HOn3 Module. He makes one interesting statement. Early on in the article he mentions "having spent 4 years researching and scratchbuilding..." so we know he wants a prototypical/realistic operation. He states... "I choose light colors for my earth and rocks. This allows more light to be reflected oonto the models so their details can be seen. For example, if you are modeling a region that has burnt umber-colored soil, try lightening it up a few shades. Your eye will still "believe" it's the same color, and you will be able to see more details of your models." I have noticed that you can take a mediocre boxcar and run it on an exceptional layout (scenery wise) and it looks great. A great boxcar can look just as good. OR just as bad on a mediocre layout (scenery wise). It is the whole hat is seen and percieved. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm There are 10 of thousands of older Athearn and MDC cars kits available for a lower cost. Easy to get and cheaper still mail order. > There are 10 of thousands of older Athearn and MDC cars kits available for a > lower cost. Easy to get and cheaper still mail order. Very true Jon. I plan on using MDC old time cars exclusively on my 1880-1900 line. With a new paint job and a little weathering they look great. Not perfect, but neither is a layout that tries to fit 17 miles of countryside including 5 towns into about 36' of mainline. All I really want is the "flavour" of the area and time. IF it looks great to me, I will be happy. but I know I am very picky and will be constantly tweaking :) SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > Striking a balance between quality & cost hardly seems like defending > mediocrity. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just a few cars and it certainly won't cover what we now consider even an > "average" engine. Dan, can you explain this point a little further? Are you saying that a person *can't* get an oval of track, a power pack, a good engine and a few cars for $75? Or are you just saying that a person *can* spend more than $75 if they so desire? There's no doubt that a person can spend over $75 on just a few cars - especially with some Intermountain freight cars breaking the $30 retail barrier and many Athearn cars approaching $20 retail . But the venerable Athearn F7A retails for $34 retail -- wouldn't you consider that an "average" engine? (For reference the Athearn Warbonnet starter train can be had for just about $90 - F7A, 3 cars & caboose, oval of track and a power pack.) And if you are saying that a person can't get a starter set for $75 (I think that's what you're implying, but I'm not sure so that's why I've asked you to elaborate)... are you implying that is the fault of people who buy "high dollar" cars (elitists)? SignatureMark Mathu The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/ "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it." > There's no doubt that a person can spend over $75 on just a few cars - > especially with some Intermountain freight cars breaking the $30 retail > barrier and many Athearn cars approaching $20 retail. The new Kadee covered hopper cars are nearly $40. The prices are getting obscene on the RTR stuff. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ Never test the depth of the water with both feet. Not to people who pay $100 - $400 for a brass HO car ... and the Kadee cars are BETTER in many ways. Dan Mitchell ========== > > There's no doubt that a person can spend over $75 on just a few cars - > > especially with some Intermountain freight cars breaking the $30 retail [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Never test the depth of the water with both feet. > Not to people who pay $100 - $400 for a brass HO car ... and the Kadee > cars are BETTER in many ways. Might that be kind of like comparing apples and oranges? I mean, Kadee only produces a 40' and 50' PS-1 boxcar and a PS-2 covered hopper. Are those particular cars even available as HO brass? >> Not to people who pay $100 - $400 for a brass HO car ... and the >> Kadee cars are BETTER in many ways. > > Might that be kind of like comparing apples and oranges? I mean, > Kadee only produces a 40' and 50' PS-1 boxcar and a PS-2 covered > hopper. Are those particular cars even available as HO brass? PS-2s have been done in brass, but they were never popular, as they cost more than Athearn kits. I did NOT see this as a discussion of PS-1 and PS-2 cars , but as a value judgment on the relative merits of fine but expensive plastic cars vs. brass cars, or cheap junk for that matter. A model is good if it offers quality commensurate with or better than it's cost. Thus both a $5 model and $500 model can be 'good'. Everyone has a budget of some kind, and has to do the best they can with what they have available to them. Model railroad cars are like most everything else ... you get what you pay for, maybe less, but rarely more. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Not to people who pay $100 - $400 for a brass HO car ... and the Kadee > > cars are BETTER in many ways. > > Might that be kind of like comparing apples and oranges? I mean, Kadee only > produces a 40' and 50' PS-1 boxcar and a PS-2 covered hopper. Are those > particular cars even available as HO brass? Dan, If you keep posting such sane rational thoughts, then this thread might actually die! ;=) Matt > I did NOT see this as a discussion of PS-1 and PS-2 cars , but as a > value judgment on the relative merits of fine but expensive plastic cars [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dan Mitchell >>> Not to people who pay $100 - $400 for a brass HO car ... and the Kadee >>> cars are BETTER in many ways. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > they have available to them. Model railroad cars are like most > everything else ... you get what you pay for, maybe less, but rarely more. Maybe we have a difference in terminology here -- what does "relative merits" mean to you? It seems that if a person is going to judge two models relatively, you'd need some sort of common basis to make the comparison. >> There's no doubt that a person can spend over $75 on just a few cars - >> especially with some Intermountain freight cars breaking the $30 retail >> barrier and many Athearn cars approaching $20 retail. > > The new Kadee covered hopper cars are nearly $40. The prices are > getting obscene on the RTR stuff. Considering the outstanding quality of these models, what would you expect to pay? $20? $10? $5? A handful of cowrie shells? I'm not sure why I am making that point; it's just that I'm making it. : ) The starter set you mention is a good case in point... $90, just to get started. And, yes, that sounds like a good "average" place to start. But as this trend towards higher quality/higher priced equipment goes on, it is raising the cost of entry level by making those long time staples less available. I recently conducted a "model railroad" day at a library in the area. We were able to get some simple Athearn kits for the kids to assemble. It was a great introduction to the hobby for them. I don't know how many of them will keep that interest, but it was a heck of a lot easier to start with those inexpensive kits than it would have been with more expensive, higher detailed kits. Oh well, it made sense the first time I wrote it! : ) dlm > > Striking a balance between quality & cost hardly seems like defending > > mediocrity. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > elaborate)... are you implying that is the fault of people who buy "high > dollar" cars (elitists)? > I, for one, don't want to see our hobby become one for elitists. > There was a time when you could go to the hobby shop and with about > $75, get a oval of nice track, a small but adequate power pack, a > "good" Athearn engine and a few cars. Now, that same $75 can get > quickly eaten up with the purchase of just a few cars and it > certainly won't cover what we now consider even an "average" engine. Our hobby has always encompassed varying degrees of commitment and involvement. And equally it has always encompassed differing levels of spending. If I choose to buy an Intermountain boxcar instead of an Athearn, it does not make me an "elitist"! It simply reflects my personal preferences and hobby priorities. The availablity of "high dollar" products has not diminished the supply of shake-the-box kits, or inexpensive locos. There will always be a market for both. > One doesn't need an expensive Nikon to take great pictures, one > doesn't need the most expensive woodworking tools to make good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > another way, in the hands of a master, even the cheapest violin will > make beautiful music. I'm can't agree with your analogy, Dan. If all you need to make beautiful music is a cheap violin, there'd be no need for a Stradavarius. I would argue instead that a high-quality instrument in the hands of a master will produce better sounding music. The key is "high quality", rather than simply "more expensive". The availablity of "high > dollar" products has not diminished the supply of shake-the-box kits, or > inexpensive locos. There will always be a market for both. Let's hope so. At my friendly local hobby shop, the Athearn, Accurail and Roundhouse kits are loosing shelf space to the $20 and up RTR stuff. David Starr >At my friendly local hobby shop, the Athearn, Accurail and Roundhouse kits are loosing shelf space to the $20 and up RTR stuff< Well the bottom line is that those items sell the best. Shops stock what sells and apparently at you local shop Athearn, Accurail, and Roundhouse kits do not sell as well! >> dollar" products has not diminished the supply of shake-the-box >> kits, or inexpensive locos. There will always be a market for both. >> > Let's hope so. At my friendly local hobby shop, the Athearn, Accurail > and Roundhouse kits are loosing shelf space to the $20 and up RTR > stuff. And that's the fault of the "elitists"? Or is it that the "good-enoughers" don't open their wallets too often? The overwhelming sense that I get from threads like this is that many of you who complain about the price of modern kits are just cheapskates, nothing more. > >> dollar" products has not diminished the supply of shake-the-box > >> kits, or inexpensive locos. There will always be a market for both. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sense that I get from threads like this is that many of you who complain > about the price of modern kits are just cheapskates, nothing more. And your the expert Mark. How's your form, you don't even support your local prototype, buying US instead. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates >> And that's the fault of the "elitists"? Or is it that the >> "good-enoughers" don't open their wallets too often? The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And your the expert Mark. How's your form, you don't even support > your local prototype, buying US instead. Are you chanelling John Eassie? Or did I miss the paragraph in the Australian constitution that states I'm only permitted to model the railways of my home state? Speaking of which, all those Korean-made brass locos of yours, which part of NSW do they come from? Always the hypocrite, eh, Flynn? What's that old saying about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel? > >> And that's the fault of the "elitists"? Or is it that the > >> "good-enoughers" don't open their wallets too often? The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > part of NSW do they come from? Always the hypocrite, eh, Flynn? What's > that old saying about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel? The same Korean made models you the expert model critic said were below your standard of modelling. Sounds as if you are jealous, after all they are better than your models with steam roller wheels. I have more Australian made HO scale models behind those locomotives than you have, your the only hypocrite. There is currently only 2 RTR Australian made locomotives, the AR NSW 45 and SAR 600. I have one SAR 600. I also have other Australian manufactured locomotive kits. So far we have no evidence you have a layout of any consequence, why not? I have supported my local mode railway industry, you have not. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > > >> And that's the fault of the "elitists"? Or is it that the > > >> "good-enoughers" don't open their wallets too often? The [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > of any consequence, why not? I have supported my local mode railway > industry, you have not. Terry, I think it is time to leave poor little Marky alone. You have reduced him to babbling and name calling, you have found out he is nothing more than a janitor for the local tourist RR. You have shown he is a poor boy with limited income, THAT is why he has no layout to show, he cannot afford any. You have proven that he has no friends, actually his actions here have shown that better than you could have. Leave him with his imagination entact, you have taken everything else from him. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm > The same Korean made models you the expert model critic said were > below your standard of modelling. Sounds as if you are jealous Jealous? Surely you mean envious? Either way, there is nothing you possess that I want, and nothing about you that I want to emulate. The mere thought of being anything like you makes me sick. > > The same Korean made models you the expert model critic said were > > below your standard of modelling. Sounds as if you are jealous > > Jealous? Surely you mean envious? Either way, there is nothing you > possess that I want, and nothing about you that I want to emulate. The > mere thought of being anything like you makes me sick. Good, a positive result. Terry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates >> Speaking of which, all those Korean-made brass locos of yours, >> which part of NSW do they come from? Always the hypocrite, eh, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > below your standard of modelling. Sounds as if you are jealous, after > all they are better than your models with steam roller wheels. Better than my models? The only model I have with steam roller wheels is my model steam roller. http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4406732&outx=760&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1 Everything else is gradually being converted to RP-25/88. > I have more Australian made HO scale models behind those locomotives > than you have, your the only hypocrite. Mate, I'm not the one braying about his support of the local industry while buying models made in Korea and China. > There is currently only 2 RTR Australian made locomotives, the AR NSW > 45 and SAR 600. I have one SAR 600. Waterfall been moved to South Australia, has it? And before you start your usual bullshit, show me INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that the 600s ever worked the Illawarra when they were on loan. > Waterfall been moved to South Australia, has it? And before you start > your usual bullshit, show me INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that the 600s ever > worked the Illawarra when they were on loan. Does any one have any photo's on the web of 600's on the Illawarra so our foaming expert can be convinced? SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > Does any one have any photo's on the web of 600's on the Illawarra so > our foaming expert can be convinced? Preferably photos that show them working alongside steam, as they do on the maestro's layout... >> Does any one have any photo's on the web of 600's on the Illawarra >> so our foaming expert can be convinced? > > Preferably photos that show them working alongside steam, as they do > on the maestro's layout... Even better would be a photo that shows them working through Waterfall before the yard was electrified. But that might be a tall order, since the wire went up there in 1980, and the 600s were on loan in 1982. So ideally, Terry would like a photo of a 600 at Waterfall, pre-electrification, while steam was still in service - that shouldn't be too hard. > > > >> Does any one have any photo's on the web of 600's on the Illawarra [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pre-electrification, while steam was still in service - that shouldn't > be too hard. Poor Mark, caught out again. Who said I have a SAR 600 to run on my 1950's prototype layout. Not I. I don't have it for that. The only time it get used on my layout is to push the track cleaning wagon around and testing. Otherwise it is for sitting on the shelf or visiting other layouts. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates >> Waterfall been moved to South Australia, has it? And before you start >> your usual bullshit, show me INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that the 600s ever >> worked the Illawarra when they were on loan. It isn't proof, but I definitely remember seeing one at Prt Kambla during the hire period. Dave ===== NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today. http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/ > > Waterfall been moved to South Australia, has it? And before you start > > your usual bullshit, show me INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that the 600s ever > > worked the Illawarra when they were on loan. > > Does any one have any photo's on the web of 600's on the Illawarra so our > foaming expert can be convinced? Not on the web (I don't have a slide scanner), and not working, but on 11/6/84 I photographed 601 in the Port Kembla loco depot. Doesn't mean it worked down through Waterfall, I agree, but it's certainly in the Illawarra. John Dennis >> Does any one have any photo's on the web of 600's on the Illawarra >> so our foaming expert can be convinced? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mean it worked down through Waterfall, I agree, but it's certainly > in the Illawarra. Sure is. The 600s were often seen at Port. It's interesting that you photographed one in 1984. I can remember seeing them there in 1982, but I couldn't remember how long they were in NSW. I certainly didn't realise they were here for at least two years. I've got a slide of a 600 at the head of a limestone train leaving the yard at Pt Kembla. I've also got a slide of a 600 at the head of a train of open wagons containing steel pipes, heading for Rozelle, and having come off the Illawarra at Meeks Rd. Photo was taken on the triangle near Dulwich Hill shopping centre. Date unsure at this stage. Where do you want me to post them? Put in some more points and crossings and quite a few mtrs of track, today, Terry. No curved points this time! ................................Bill -- "I have not said this. I am not here". -The Navigator > > Waterfall been moved to South Australia, has it? And before you start > > your usual bullshit, show me INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that the 600s ever [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort > estimates > I've got a slide of a 600 at the head of a limestone train leaving the yard > at Pt Kembla. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ................................Bill Keep laying that track, I might come and visit one day with my SAR 600. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > -- > "I have not said this. I am not here". -The Navigator [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort > > estimates >> Waterfall been moved to South Australia, has it? And before you start >> your usual bullshit, show me INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that the 600s ever >> worked the Illawarra when they were on loan. > >Does any one have any photo's on the web of 600's on the Illawarra so our >foaming expert can be convinced? Perhaps I can draw your attention to an Eveleigh Press publication, "Diesel Profiles - Alco DL541" by Peter Attenborough, a hard cover publication which appeared in 1998. Whilst dealing primarily with the NSWR 45 class, it also covers to South Australian 600 class and includes numerous photographs, both b&w and colour, of the operation of these latter units in NSW. But, to meet Mark's requirements, I list the following illustrations ... ... p.156 - 603/606, with 602 push-up, Unanderra (towards Unanderra West) 25/9/1982. p.157 - 4529 + 600 d/a, Burrawang, en route to Port Kembla. p.157 - 600/606 Shellharbour, crossing 620 class, 14/8/1982. p.160 - 48148/602, down goods, Thirroul, 27/11/1984. p.160 - 601 on local trip working, Bulli, 12/10/1984. p.160 - 600/602 on up mt coal crossing 48143 at Scarborough signal box on 20/5/1982. p.168 - colour image of 4/600 outside Port Kembla depot, 11/9/1982. p.169 - colour image, 600/606 crossing Macquarie Rivulet, 14/8/1982. If Mark would like to view the book for himself, he knows where I live, only a couple of kms from his place. Perhaps it is time for Mark to eat humble pie! Hunslet. > If Mark would like to view the book for himself, he knows where I > live, only a couple of kms from his place. Thanks Hunslet, but I have my own copy. :-) And as it turns out, I had a few photographs of my own of 600s on the coast. > Perhaps it is time for Mark to eat humble pie! Not a chance. I had rather hoped Flynn would get off his bucket arse and do his own research, but no. I 'm still curious as to what spin he'll put on having a post-1982 diesel on a pre-1980 layout. After all these years, the 600s are back again. In the past couple of weeks I've seen 602 a number of times, in company with misc. other locos, passing my place here in Sydney. .......................................Bill -- "I have not said this. I am not here". -The Navigator > > If Mark would like to view the book for himself, he knows where I > > live, only a couple of kms from his place. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do his own research, but no. I 'm still curious as to what spin he'll > put on having a post-1982 diesel on a pre-1980 layout. > > If Mark would like to view the book for himself, he knows where I > > live, only a couple of kms from his place. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do his own research, but no. I 'm still curious as to what spin he'll > put on having a post-1982 diesel on a pre-1980 layout. How your story changes. Now you have the book, can't you read. You don't know how not to lie. The fact is I have an operating layout, not a plan for a future layout. I don't operate my diesels on my steam era layout other then for testing and track cleaning. You were the one who claimed 600's were not used on the Illawarra. You either were deliberately lying or did not now, and you are trying quickly cover up the fact. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > How your story changes. Now you have the book, can't you read. You > don't know how not to lie. The fact is I have an operating layout, > not a plan for a future layout. I don't operate my diesels on my > steam era layout other then for testing and track cleaning. You were > the one who claimed 600's were not used on the Illawarra. Tut, tut, telling fibs again? Please quote verbatim the post in which I claimed that 600s were not used on the Illawarra. > You either were deliberately lying or did not now Neither. I asked YOU for proof that the 600s operated on the Coast, knowing full well that they were - and as usual, you took the lazy way out and asked others to do the work for you. The bloke who wrote that I can play you like a cheap violin was absolutely correct. A shrill, discordant, one-note violin, at that. > > How your story changes. Now you have the book, can't you read. You > > don't know how not to lie. The fact is I have an operating layout, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The bloke who wrote that I can play you like a cheap violin was > absolutely correct. A shrill, discordant, one-note violin, at that. Your statement is below. Waterfall been moved to South Australia, has it? And before you start your usual bullshit, show me INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that the 600s ever worked the Illawarra when they were on loan. Trying to change what you said again. You don't seem to be able to stop lying. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates Also numerous photos in Railway Digest at the time. They seemed to be quite popular with photographers when working the Bombo ballast trains. Cheers David > Also numerous photos in Railway Digest at the time. They seemed to be > quite popular with photographers when working the Bombo ballast > trains. I can still remember bout 1982 seeing a 600 class on an UP train at Sacrborough, with the SM giving him the staff, and arguing with my father saying it was a 45 class, I knew no better at that age to what the differences were between a 600 class and a 45 class. Nathan > Cheers > David > And that's the fault of the "elitists"? Or is it that the > "good-enoughers" don't open their wallets too often? The overwhelming > sense that I get from threads like this is that many of you who complain > about the price of modern kits are just cheapskates, nothing more. Or is it that higher prices have turned away some of those who might be interested in the hobby? And there are a lot of reasons why one might prefer one type of kit over another. Ability, availability and preference are but a few that have nothing to do with economics. Having just invested a very large sum of money into an addition to our home to, in part, house my layout does not qualify me as a "cheapskate," and your suggesting so because of my choice in rolling stock is not appropriate in what I thought was to be a civil discussion. dlm > And that's the fault of the "elitists"? Or is it that the > "good-enoughers" don't open their wallets too often? The overwhelming > sense that I get from threads like this is that many of you who complain > about the price of modern kits are just cheapskates, nothing more. Bull! The LHS where my repair shop is has started giving up shelf space that used to be full of Athearn and Roundhouse kits for the higher priced Branchline, P2K, and Walthers kits. Personally, I like the Branchline kits. But now the kids, who are the future of the hobby, that used to come in once a week to pick up an $8.00 kit are now having to wait the better part of a month to save up the money for a higher priced kit or RTR version of what they were building for themselves. And a lot of them are getting discouraged about only being able to get one car for their train, when they used to be able to get four for the same money. There are also a lot of retiree's with layouts who are on fixed incomes in this area. They aren't too happy with the dearth of inexpensive kits that's been developing lately either. Having to be frugal because of flat out not having a lot of money to put into a hobby you enjoy doesn't make anyone a "cheapskate". -- Len Head Rust Scraper KL&B Eastern Lines RR Museum > Bull! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Having to be frugal because of flat out not having a lot of money to > put into a hobby you enjoy doesn't make anyone a "cheapskate". No, it doesn't. But when did frugal become synonymous with bitching about "obscene" prices for what are extremely high-quality models. My remarks were not directed at anybody forced to be frugal by their circumstances. Those folks don't seem to be the ones complaining. As for your assertion that kids are the future of the hobby, that's a separate issue, one that is long overdue for debunking. > Or is it that higher prices have turned away some of those who might be > interested in the hobby? And there are a lot of reasons why one might [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of my choice in rolling stock is not appropriate in what I thought was to be > a civil discussion. Please accept my apologies Dan, that comment was not directed at you personally. I don't doubt that your rollingstock purchases are determined by factors apart from their cost. (And if home renovations and alteration are as expensive and stressful in the US as they are here, you have my sympathies! :-)) But in all honesty, I don't know what other word to use. Frugal? Parsimonious? Niggardly? Tight-bloody-fisted? I say this because of the many comments made about the price of models such as the Kadee PS-2. The OP I was responding to described their price as "obscene". I can't fathom that - the model, and others like it, is on par with, or superior to brass, at a fraction of the price. It can't have been cheap to develop or produce, but to my thinking the price is commensurate with the model's quality. I agree that higher prices could discourage newcomers to the hobby form purchasing high-end products - presumably that's why the second-hand tables at local exhibitions are so popular. I tend to think that those who are really committed will find ways to get the most from a limited hobby budget. But perhaps I am not the best judge of this, since I am now at a stage in life where my hobby spending is not constrained by other demands on my finances, so I can indulge myself a bit. > Please accept my apologies Dan, that comment was not directed at you > personally. Accepted! : ) dlm > > > > I, for one, don't want to see our hobby become one for elitists. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > dollar" products has not diminished the supply of shake-the-box kits, or > inexpensive locos. There will always be a market for both. I hope so but I'm not sure. As the demand for RTR stuff grows, something else gives, and from the posts I've seen here and the limited experienc I've had myself, I suggest that the availability of the inexpensive kit has suffered. There's not as many as there used to be at the shops I frequent. And let's not forget that one does ntobecome an elitist by buying higher quality kits. But... if the lower end drops out of the market, then by default, a lot of people will have to drop out for economic reasons. This means that the higher income model railroaders will be the only oned capable of continuing in the hobby. That time is a long way off, but we "could" be trending in that direction. Think of it this way... if an expensive Cadilac were the only car avalable for transportation, how many people would be forced to find other means of transportation due to economic reasons? The availability of varied pricing on different automobiles allows more people to own them. > > One doesn't need an expensive Nikon to take great pictures, one > > doesn't need the most expensive woodworking tools to make good [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the hands of a master will produce better sounding music. The key is > "high quality", rather than simply "more expensive". But a Stradavarius in my hands would be totally useless whereas an accomplished musician could probably make better music from an orange crate with twine stretched across it! : ) dlm >> Our hobby has always encompassed varying degrees of commitment and >> involvement. And equally it has always encompassed differing levels [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the only oned capable of continuing in the hobby. That time is a long > way off, but we "could" be trending in that direction. Yes, it is certainly possible, <if> the low-end product disappears. I haven't noticed much change in what my regular hobby stores stock, but I don't know whether the situation in Australia is the same as the US, at least as far as those modelling US prototypes are concerned. To be fair, I don't really look for the low-end kits when I go shopping. So you may well be right about this. > Think of it this way... if an expensive Cadilac were the only car > avalable for transportation, how many people would be forced to find > other means of transportation due to economic reasons? The > availability of varied pricing on different automobiles allows more > people to own them. Well, while making allowances for the fact that hobby spending is discretionary, while owning a car is an absolute necessity for many people, I'd agree that a market consisting entirely of luxury cars would price many potential buyers out. But surely that would lead to the availability of cheap cars to capture that segment of the market, wouldn't it? (I know SFA about economics, but I think that's what would happen...) >>> One doesn't need an expensive Nikon to take great pictures, one >>> doesn't need the most expensive woodworking tools to make good [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > accomplished musician could probably make better music from an orange > crate with twine stretched across it! : ) LOL!!! That sounds like the instrument my next-door neighbour's kid plays! There is something to consider concerning the LHS. The profit ratio for a non-discount shop is normally 40% (am using this as a figure to compare). So a RTR top grade car costs around $20 which nets a profit of $8. A $5 Athearn (or similar) car nets $2 profit. So two things happen here, first is 4 times the shelf space (assuming the boxes are the same) and second is the shop has to sell at a 4 to 1 ration to maintain the same profit. So if I ran a shop I would look closely at the sales of the two items for the two reasons stated. > All in all, the older and less sophisticated kit looks pretty good, > especially on the layout and a couple of feet away from the eye. I have gone the other way. Having built a few "high-end" kits and then run them, I quickly decided to replace all my old, crude, inaccurate Athearn rollingstock. To me, there is no comparison. Some have claimed that there is little discernible difference in appearance between old and new kits when on the layout. My suggestion is that you have your spectacle prescriptions renewed. I'll tend to agree with Mark on this one. I too have been replacing a bunch of my older equipment, and unbuilt kits, with newer more detailed and especially more accurate models. My layout is a shallow one however, more or less a long diorama, where inspection of the cars at close distance is normal. Rarely is the operator more than 4 feet from their train, and usually they are more like 18" from it. The layout is also not much below eye level, when sitting down (in a roll around office chair) as is normal practice at my layout (low, angled, upstairs ceilings). I do agree that the more detailed cars are more delicate and more prone to damage in a rough handling situation. I do get some damage when transporting and displaying my trains at public expositions on the local club's modular layout. Good carrying cases minimizes the travel problem (as we've recently discussed here). There's no good solution to the 'bozo' spectator that just HAS to dig, poke, scratch, or push the rolling stock. We have low plexiglas walls around the layout now, to keep LITTLE fingers away, but these DO restrict and degrade the view so we DON'T want to make them a lot higher. The major problem is with BIG fingers, long baggy coat sleeves, hanging jewelry, and such. People reach across the layout to point at things, and get snagged (Yes, we have signs asking them to NOT do this, but they can't read!). We have close to ZERO malicious damage ... just stupidity and ham-handed thoughtless damage. And damage can also result from collisions between the trains. Our trackwork is good, so this is minimal, but does happen. The problem is now much worse with DCC, as real collisions are far more likely than in 'DC' days. If you're going to operate the stuff, you just have to accept that some 'wear and tear' will occur. I agree that the average public spectator probably won't notice the difference between as detailed accurate car and a Tyco monstrosity, but *I* notice the difference, and hope a few others will too! Dan Mitchell ========== > > All in all, the older and less sophisticated kit looks pretty good, > > especially on the layout and a couple of feet away from the eye. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > appearance between old and new kits when on the layout. My suggestion is > that you have your spectacle prescriptions renewed. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.