Sometimes, the only car available are the "more detailed" ones..

For many cars that my railroad will require, the only option is to go the "highly detailed car" one.  For instance, so far the only shingle sheathed box cars that I can find are the Resin Kit cars.  Not cheap at all, but necessary if I am to have a proper representation of the type of cars seen on railroads in the late 1940s to early 1950s.  Just coming from the National Train Show in Cleveland, I just purchased 30 more resin kits, not because I need super detailed cars; not because I enjoy building such cars, I don't, but because to not have would compromise the goals I have for my railroad.

Ken L.

Dinosaur and Proud

I appreciate that this column is intended to present an alternative view and provoke comment and discussion.

Curiously (sadly), I find myself 110% in agreement – does this make me some kind of dinosaur?

I thought I loved detail, but as my experience has grown, again and again I find myself capping the detail levels as soon as I reach the undefinable “Good Enough” point. I say “undefinable”, because this is where personal preference kicks in.

Regardless, I get maximum satisfaction building wood and metal car kits/structures that can be anything from 10 to 50 years old.

Staples for grab irons? – Looks just fine, even pretty close up when everything is weathered and the car is sitting in the context of nice grungy surroundings.

“Good enough” = “maximum productivity”; if that’s your bag and it most certainly is mine…..

Rob Clark
Cornhill & Atherton RR

Absolutly Right On

Cost is the main reason I decided to try my hand at scratching building a freight car. A relatively simple flat from about 1900. I haven't yet decided if I am going to let my time period slip back completely or if I will run the RR as a frozen in place RR catering to the tourist looking for old stuff while providing service to on line customers with a mix of newer and older cars. Newer being 50's. It cost me about $12 to build that car. Many of the parts I bought have enough included in the bag to supply 2-4 cars. I chose to leave off 90% of the brake rigging. Can't see it don't need it.

On the other hand when at a train show/sale  or in the hobby shop and a previously bought kit shows up on the table for a low price I'll buy it if it will fill in a hole in the roster.

The down side is that when you go the route of scratch building most of your cars is that when you throw in building construction too, most of us are going to end up with a smaller RR. That's ok too.

Jack

Agreed

A large number of modelers mourned the end of Athearn's Blue Box line and I was among that contingent. I spent many a night alone in hotels rooms work work related travel assembling those kits. Detail wasn't spectacular, but you got a reasonably well detailed car for a reasonable price. I still watch eBay and occasionally score old kits for fair prices. There is still something about opening the box of a 40-year old unassembled Athearn kit and getting a whiff of the musty cardboard box that stirs the soul!

I have almost 300 freight cars and I can count on one hand the number of RTR cars I own. Assembling freight cars kits is one of my most favorite parts of this great hobby. Fortunately we still have Branchline and Accurail kits to keep us busy.... and the small resin freight car producers for those who are willing to pay a little more.

Good Enough

I am trying to build a large roster of freight cars to operate my layout. I have about 300 cars right now, but when the layout is fully operational I will need about 900 cars for a full operating session.  As a result you will find a lot of MDC/Roundhouse and Athearn BB cars on my layout. I  am still buying them on Ebay.

Last OPS session, there was an accident and a few of the cars went into the canyon.  (Off the layout on to the concrete basement floor!)  All of the cars were repaired and placed back into service.The fine detailed cars are nice, however I can buy three or four of the basic cars for what a detailed car would cost.  I do have several KCS brass models, but they are in the display case in the den.

My cars are weighted, receive metal wheels and KD couplers and operate very well on the layout.

Reverse Running: The case against detail

  It's a win -win situation.  We can buy the new highly detailed cars ( look on ebay and find them at reasonable prices)   or we can buy the older less detailed stuff. There's plenty of athearn, accurail, intermountain, red caboose, etc. kits around since the average modeler buys about 10 times as many kits as they ever get around to building. I have everything from cardboard cars built in the 1940's to the latest exact rail and BLM cars and I find a use for them all. .DaveB

An experiment

I decided to run an experiment on my layout. I got a very good deal on some highly detailed PFE 57' refrigerator cars. They looked beautiful, with see through grills, fine grab irons and stirrup steps. I also had a good number of Athearn blue box 57' reefers. With a few modifications to lower them to the same height as the Intermountain cars and a little weathering, they looked pretty close to their highly detailed brethren. I run the 20+ car train on my layout regularly, with the Athearns mixed in with the Intermountains, without saying anything to my regular crew. After a couple of times with no one saying anything besides "nice train", I asked them if they noticed anything about the train. It was only when they looked closely did they notice the detail discrepancy between the cars. Many of my regulars are detail fanatics, regularly displaying their models at RPM meets.

Joe's point is well made and quite valid. I am building a large layout - over 300 feet of track, with long mainline freights. I tend to shop for bargains all the time to help keep the budget down. I also tend to replace heavy cast on stirrup steps with those from A-Line, but rarely do I scrape off the cast on grab irons as it tends to be too time consuming.

Mike Coen

There is a case for both and

There is a case for both and a third option. The super detailed cars are nice and make the rest of the scene look very good. I am planning a large layout with long trains and look for ways to keep costs down as well. I have found that the best way to do this is by buying kits. The resin folks make kits and they appear to be beautiful and highly detailed and can often be had for less than the 40 dollar ready to runs, or as I like to call them ready to disassemble.

I have bought some of them over the years and can say that I truly like the kadee cars but do not find the others worth the money so far. Accurail and Atlas still market some kits in the plastic range as do Bowser. Buy those and learn how to build simple kits you will be rewarded with fine running models.

Detail and me

I love looking at a highly detailed piece of equipment think most of us do.  But when I watch a train roll by on the club layout, I mostly see it as a whole, unless something jumps out at me.  Boxcars are boxcars, as long as they are respectable.  (Shiny new plastic, or a high cube boxcar behind a Mogul--or a truss rod car behind a modern box--err--diesel--are very noticeable.)

Flats catch my eye more, so I'm trying to make them look really good--and the load does, too.  So, I look for a higher level--though not ridiculously high--on those.  In short, "good enough" is good enough for me.

The more unusual the car, the more detail becomes important, because it draws the eye.  (And a well detailed specialty car contributes to an impression of detail for the whole train.)  Unusual can be a center well car or other unusual piece of rolling stock--or the only boxcar on a consist of tank cars--it's different, so it gets attention.  In short, detail on what I see first helps contribute to the impression of the whole train.

Likewise, the locomotive and caboose are stand-outs on a train; I'll notice them more.

Lights where they belong also add more than a few extra rivets.  What, to me, almost never addes much, is underbody details beyond what's visible from the side--an impression of brakes and assorted other hardware.

However, I still plan on having a few "showpiece" cars--ones that are intended to really be amazing.  The plans are for them to be an observation car, and a pair of gun flats--with a gun.

In short, the level of detail I want/am willing to pay for depends on what the unit is.

The case against more detailed cars

I thoroughly agree, too much detail can be wasted, it creates expense and if you can't see it when operating then it doesn't exist!  I model in N Gauge and so unless I am within 12 inches of the car can't see half the detail to appreciate it.  I currently have about 300 freight cars but my layout space has been expanded and the dream layout based on a line through the Rockies can be started.  Consequently many of the required additional cars will be sourced off Ebay for cheapness and will be older models because numbers will be what makes the impact, not detail. We seem to have lost the "good enough" attitude of John Allen and Allen McClelland.  Also one or two highly detailed cars fool the brain into thinking that all cars are highly detailed.  The only area where I think more detail is warranted even on a cheap car are the roof walks because on most layouts these are the easiest bit to see on any car.

Detail, Operations, N-scale

I agree with Alan.

Particularly in N-scale, excessive detail, especially underbody detail, can't be seen once the car is on the layout.   The brake pipes on some cars aren't much thicker than a hair.

If you're like many operators that exchange cars from a storage area to a staging track this extra detail makes handling the cars a delicate operation.

I have a couple of cars that had beautiful, finely detailed ladder rungs that never made from the box to their initial run on the layout without breaking off.  They look great, but aren't very robust.

I'm not in favor of going back to the quality level of the 80's, but some of the detail that can't be seen isn't much more than an exercise for the designers.

gs

...

Anybody ever stop to ask, why do we need 200 cars in the first place?

Or even 50?

I think it all depends on

I think it all depends on whether you're modeling "rolling stock", or "trains".  It's a shift of focus.

Some broad general observations - won't be true of everyone.

If you model rolling stock, then you likely model in HO or larger, probably going for extreme detail, are willing to spend ten to twenty hours or more on a single piece of equipment, and probably do much of your work with an optivisor, even in larger scales. You likely operate solo, or at most with a few like-minded individuals who will call YOU over to re-rail equipment that comes off. 

If you model trains, you're going for the visual effect of large masses of equipment, usually a smaller scale or a large scale viewed from a longer distance, and extreme detail isn't important to you because you can't see it anyway from your observational distance. Price is a factor as well, because a 80-100 car train at $40.00 a car is just outrageous. You may also prefer group operations over solo efforts, and perhaps are often running in public where it's more difficult to keep curious fingers off your stuff.

I model trains. Usual viewing distance for my railroad is about 2 feet, even when operating... which translates to over 100 yards. If it can't be seen from a football field away, it's unnecessary detail.

When not on my layout or at a show, my rolling stock lives in Plano 3600 boxes... 16 to 32 units per box, at least 24 boxes worth. I neither need nor want extreme detail. I can do detail work... I used to wargame modern era in 1/285th  scale. I had battalions of M1 tanks in four color camoflage, and hand-painted 2 inch long F-16s in the Thunderbird paint scheme. To quote John Astin's character from Night Court: "I'm feeling MUCH better now!"

Anybody ever stop to ask, why

You know that "elitism" that people were claiming didn't exist on MRH?   You just gave us a perfect example.

Nope

No "normal" model railroader I know ever stops to ask that question. I always thought the object of the whole "game" of model railroad was that the guy with the most trains wins!

because

More than 50 cars on a layout?

Hmm, I have about 75 cars, including cabooses on the railroad (15' by 16'), but I have about a dozen more in a box that can be put on the railroad when my industrial tracks get done and Lord knows how many kits I have not yet built?  But like someone else said, is there a number that we can't exceed?

Regards, Vic Bitleris

Sad but True

This is the main reason I gave up on the idea of building another layout, Cost.

Upon becoming disabled and retiring at pretty much the same time, I was forced into the "fixed income" crowd. I had been hanging on to box upon box of old layout parts and rolling stock with the pipe dream of once again building a layout. Recently, I woke from the dream and sold off track, buildings, rolling stock, locomotives and what-have-you, keeping only a handful of models that I had spent too much time and too much money, scratch building and/or detailing.

The premise behind this article is more than accurate. Model railroading has become a wealthy man's hobby, the average Joe is priced out of it.

Scooter

No detail vs. bad detail

Related to this, I have for some time followed a philosophy which may offend some rivet counters.  I feel that it is better to leave a detail off completely than to model it poorly.  Obviously, major parts don't count, as they are needed to complete a model, but little things like door latches, boiler washout plugs, etc. do.  If they're there and done poorly, they stand out like a sore thumb.  Giant foot thick grab irons just look clunky and toy-like.  On the other hand, if the detail is omitted completely, you don't notice it and it does not offend the eye.  Our brains are really good at seeing what they want or expect to see, as long as there is nothing getting in the way of the illusion.

In other words, leave the details off, and be proud!

Anybody ever stop to ask, why

"Anybody ever stop to ask, why do we need 200 cars in the first place?"

   It depends on what one models.  If it's the SP narrow gauge they certainly don't need 200 cars but if it's iron range operations in Minnesota they need almost 200 hoppers per train :> )  It's not hard to build a 200 car roster over the typical modeler's lifetime and I'd guess most long term modelers have more than that. Over 200 highly detailed cars would be a burden to protect and maintain though so I'd expect most cars to be runners instead of show pieces......DaveB

Why oh Why

My layout rosters about 400 cars.  Most of these move during an op session.  Typical trains are 18-20 cars, and I have a total of about 130 industry spots.  There are also through trains that do no work on-line (e.g. unit coal and auto parts).  The sheer volume of cars is needed to keep all the trains running and ensure industries get switched as appropriate.

As I noted in a previous blog entry, quality varies a great deal.  Here we have a CB&Q car from Cox (a 1970s train set car with a cast-on running board), a fairly detailed Atlas ACF "Precision Design" car, and a generic stand-in WP car from Accurail (with cushion draft gear added).  These span four decades in the hobby. 

I do vote with my pocket book...

...that's why I don't buy blue box junk at flea markets.

Would I like cars to be cheaper?  Sure.  Do I want the detail dumbed down?  No.  I appreciate the detail in my cars; I want them to look like miniatures of real equipment I've seen and not like lumps of deformed plastic with a railway logo stuck on the side.

I like freestanding detail.  I like wire grabs and etched roofwalks.  I'm glad I don't have to put up with molded on detail and clunky Athearn roofwalks anymore.  If I have to have fewer to have better, so be it.

IT TRULY IS A RICH MANS HOBBY

    Oh oh. Somebody brought that old phrase up -     Model Railroading is for rich people.

    Yes it is - no it isn't. 

     It depends on what you think you have to have. Back in the 80's and 90's I made good money with my business. I had disposable income and not being interested in habitual gambling, hookers,  illegal drugs, or skiing at Mt Hood, I started to buy brass and expensive "craftsman" kits. I noticed several things.

    While it was fun collecting the things I had, my life as an actual model railroader seemed to die. In the 1960's and 70's I was a sratchbuilder and did a lot of modeling with very little. It was MUCH easier then because, brass locos aside, we weren't tempted by super detailed Chinese  slave labor products. In 1984 I built an 2x8 logging camp diorama over a period of 9 months that cost me less than $500.00 - for EVERYTHING. That was my last great modeling project until the bottom started to fall out of the economy.

    i sold all my brass and craftsman kits just to pay bills. I'm now authoring a series of articles in Timbertimes called "poverty modeling" with several books in the works.  I'm having a GREAT time and I'm a MODELER again.

    i don't complain about the level of detail on $40.00 car kits because I can't afford them. It's human nature to complain about how you can't duplicate that $50,000 layout your friend has because you don't have the capital.

    As to super detailed cars I'll give you a real example. I collected several East Broad Top hoppers at swap meets. These were the EBT kits that you put together. Then Blackstone came out with the same car in their super detailed ready to run version for $60.00.  Which cars looked better? Which were more "fun"?

    It's a trick question. Because the answer was my Ambriod $5.00 off Ebay kit that i had to build from the ground up. I had several evenings of fun and only spent $5.00 on it. Oh, did i mention it was a double kit? So i got two.

  Other people have more money than I do. That's life in the adult world. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy my hobby.

    Lon Wall

PS - By the way, the world of super detailed ready to run models may be numbered anyway. If you think they are expensive now wait until the dollar devaluation, unrest in China and the next chapter in totalitarian government.

As Woldor Sockbat would say -Wheeeee!

...

You Want 200 cars, but the reality is, your layout/layout space only holds 25 or 30.  Rob Spangler has a large layout, and he has a roster to go with it - again, wants versus needs, he wanted to build a large layout.  Many of us want to build a large layout, but it's not like we Need to build a large layout, and most of us will never build a layout much bigger than a single bedroom.

That leaves a lot of cars sitting forever.You only need 15-25 cars to make a train.  Of course, we Want 50 and 75 car trains.  But...well, needs versus wants...

This isn't a statement of elitism.  It's a statement of reality, a matter of tuning focus.

If you build a 30'  x 60', it's going to cost more than a 10' x 10'.  Yes,cars are $40 nowadays, but an average sized layout is only big enough to hold a handful in the first place.  Quality v Quantity, with a small number of cars you can sit and spend more time weathering each one, turning out cars like this month's weathering article, instead of rushing to have a whole lot really quick.

This has always been a rich mans hobby - IF you insist on having a Huge pike.  You don't have to have a huge pike, and you don't have to have a huge roster.  This hobby is quite affordable for the layman when we build and buy to our realistic space.