From the manufacturer's perspective... How much detail?

[robert3985]

@Puddington,

I can only speak for myself, so here goes.

In my model train world, there is no "3 ft rule", and I always feel a bit uneasy with every non-scale item I see on models, such as non-scale couplers, cast-on ladders and grabs, too high ride height, Magnematic dongles hanging down, incorrect truck sideframes, sliding doors sagging or being halfway open as the train moves around the layout, pizza-cutter flanges or overly wide tires, railings that look like sewer pipes and obviously wrong colors or design in the paint jobs. 

Oddly, I have less of a problem with details that are absent, such as brake hose lines, smokejack support lines, cab awnings and armrests, and grabs in obscure places such as on the ends of passenger cars, etc.

I have a favorite line of logic, which goes "it doesn't cost any more to do it right", but I realize that sometimes, it DOES cost more...particularly with added-on details. I also realize the definition of "right" is arguable and is why you've posed your question here...and I don't know if my answer is any more correct than most of the others.

To plod onward...I agree with several of the posts here, and heartily disagree with others. 

Here is what I look for in any model I buy (1) Scale fidelity.  This means "Does this model's proportions and provided detail comply with a prototype?" (2) Are the details provided (both cast-on and separate) somewhere in the ballpark as far as being prototypically proportioned? (3) Is the paint scheme and paint color correct?  This is the least important point for me, as I find it fairly easy to modify a paint scheme, but when it's correct, it makes me happy.

If a model isn't fully decked out with separate details, I (like others here) prefer the model to be accurate in its proportions, as well as in its cast-on details.  I would prefer there to be no handrails or grabs at all vs grossly oversized cast-on ones.  I would also prefer there to be no underbody details at all vs blobs that "represent" appliances such as what are on the cast white-metal underbodies of Kadee/MTL N-scale cars, or what's integrally cast on to the roofs of practically all of old passenger cars.

I realize that this might be difficult to do from a marketing standpoint, as I assume the vast majority of model railroaders prefer to "buy and run" their equipment, rather than tinker with each one to get it "right".  I am going to assume that the vast majority of buyers out there are also not going to gripe about details that ARE present not being oversized or being accurate in all viewing directions...and the detail guys can add more detail a lot more easily if we don't have to carve them off first.

I am also going to assume that most modelers want models that are "affordable" too...and that is what manufacturers fight with every time you start planning a new model..."How do we provide proper detailing on this model and retain our price point?"  Something usually has to give, and I will say it's usually the separate details that get eliminated since they suffer not only from design and manufacturing costs, but also have to have a person who is getting paid to properly attach them to the model.

This means that details like ladders on the sides of cars, which are obvious and would be sorely missed if not included, could most inexpensively be carved into the injection mold, OR..for more expense, could be separate, and in N-scale...would probably be best represented by being chemically milled, which is the most expensive way of adding them...and the most accurate.

I for one, have NEVER GRIPED about a lot of sweet detailing on models...even when it was slightly oversized or fragile.  With a little thought, manufacturers ought to be able to satisfy a majority of buyers by making their models accurately detailed and proportioned, and simply leaving off small details such as grabs, but providing integrally-cast-on end/rivet details for the parts of grabs that are flush with the sides of the model, and a dimple to act as a drill guide for those who want to add sturdy wire grabs...or drill holes in the underbodies and mount separate appliances.

To promote this idea, perhaps a guide could be provided either online or in the box as to what parts go where...for the modelers who want to add them...recommending wire diameter, and stating how wide the grabs should be.

I'd go for something like this in a heartbeat, being able to run the cars out-of-the-box, and adding details as I had the time and/or inclination to do so...especially if this protocol could significantly lower the price.

Another thing to think about would be for the manufacturer to offer a line of car/engine details...etched, cast, and printed..which might mean added income and diversification, allowing the customer to add a high degree of details to the models using your products exclusively, but deleting the expense of adding those details during manufacturing of the models. An added benefit would be that these would also be available to customers detailing cars that are not yours.

Seems like a win-win to me.

But, what do I know? 

I think another point to keep in mind is that you are NEVER going to make everybody happy.  There will always be some customers out there who will complain loudly, no matter what you do.

I would think the answer is to make most of us happy.

But, thanks for asking!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Mike C]

 I say give me a detailed car within reason .  But just as important is the cars ride height , and for box type cars , a thin running board . Nothing ruins a cars looks  quicker than it being too high off of the rails and having a 2 ' thick running board .  I don't mind paying a bit more for detail as I only buy enough cars for a small layout . At this point I don't need more cars , but will buy cars to replace older less detailed cars .

[Kisatchie]

I'm happy with the amount of detail on my Micro-Trains cars. That's my standard. Atlas Trainman cars are okay too, so I overlook the thick roofwalks and fat stirrups and all.

I really like all the detail on my Intermountain box cars and reefers, but I have some cars that have broken grab irons. That, I can do without.

Well, that's all I have to say. For now.


Hmm... I like to put
greasy scale handprints
on my Z scale grab irons...

[jagged ben]

Well, I guess why ask the question here if we're not representative of most modelers.   I remember how uncivil the old Atlas forum could be.  I think we try to be constructive here, which doesn't mean withholding reasonable criticism, but doesn't mean flaying people who are making an effort, be they modelers or manufacturers.

I guess all I can do is state my preference and hope others agree.

[Cajonpassfan]

I remember how uncivil the old Atlas forum could be.  I think we try to be constructive here, which doesn't mean withholding reasonable criticism, but doesn't mean flaying people who are making an effort, be they modelers or manufacturers.

+1 Otto K.

[Puddington]

Well, I guess why ask the question here if we're not representative of most modelers.   I remember how uncivil the old Atlas forum could be.  I think we try to be constructive here, which doesn't mean withholding reasonable criticism, but doesn't mean flaying people who are making an effort, be they modelers or manufacturers.

I guess all I can do is state my preference and hope others agree.

The Railwire crew are not representative of "most customers" (maybe a better way to put it) The majority of the hobby are "buy the RTR, put it on the track" modellers. TRW is chock full of guys that represent the upper 1% of scratch builders, kitbashers and artistic masters..... while they are are breed unto themselves, I want their opinion because although many here are clearly not part of the majority, they are experienced, savvy modellers who know the hobby and have a feel for the market.

[up1950s]

I like details , but not details that will be easily broken when the fleshly hand holds the model . Easily broken hand grabs on an otherwise outstanding 10K tankcar that I have 40 or 80 of ticks me off . If the detail is likely to be squeezed , make it from metal or some forgiving plastic . I have no problem adding grabs or then painting them if supplied pre bent and the model has dimples for me to bore out . I would not want to do it otherwise , but might . 

[mu26aeh]

The majority of the hobby are "buy the RTR, put it on the track" modellers.

Me, me, that's me.   But maybe a point or two closer to the 1%   Just in case you are matching our opinions to skill level 

[peteski]

I'm also surprised by the "down" votes someone is giving to certain posts in this thread when those posts have nothing IMO which would deserve a "down"vote. They just show the poster's preference and opinion about the subject.

I'm also happy with the amount of details present on MT cars (the older ones).  In N scale I actually prefer the molded-on ladders and grab irons if they are done right (not too klunky). MT seems to get those to look just right to me.  But even MT ventured into separately-applied ladders on their Hy-cube cars and those looked really bad (ladders way too thick).  Hopefully they won't repeat that on their future new boxcars.

The MT's die makers also figured out that sweet spot where the engraved details seem to look right. I realize that in N scale the engraved details will always be slightly out of scale, but they (at least to me) figured out that happy medium where things like panel seam lines or the gaps between wooden boards are visible but not too exaggerated.  Even MT is not perfect - their models have some sins too. But to me they seem to come closes to what I see as a well-made model.

As far as the details under the car go, I really don't care much about that. Unless you are displaying your model sitting on a mirror, or upside down, you can't really see much of it.  It is nice when it is there, but useless in normal operation.  I'm talking about boxcars here. On cars like tank cars or hoppers I do like to see the brake details (since it is exposed and visible from a normal viewing angle).

[thomasjmdavis]

I don't know if I am at all representative, but here is my opinion:

"It depends"

If what is advertised is a "highly detailed, accurate to prototype" model, that is what I expect to get.  If a manufacturer is charging more than MT or Kato or (recent) Atlas, I expect to get a car that is better than MT or Kato, or at the very least, a very accurate rendition of a particular prototype- something rare enough that the larger manufacturers are unlikely to ever produce it.  I do understand that a model of an unusual prototype from a batch run of a few hundred or thousand is going to be pricier than a mass produced "Trainman" grade model.  But I'm not always looking for top end detail or rare prototypes. I also buy "runners"- especially for passenger cars, where I will probably not get an accurate car anyway, unless I build it or kitbash it (and I will be honest, the quality of my own work is not going to approach the quality of a Kato model until I have a lot more practice).  So, I would rather buy a $25 stand in than a $45 stand in. For Rapido, since Puddington asked the question, that means I buy passenger cars for CN prototypes in CN colors, but not L&N colors, cause for that it just isn't cost effective for me.  And no dayliners in the 1954 scheme.  Which reminds me- you all need to do another coach run in green and black.
 
In general, I would go with the "if I can't see it, it is probably not that important" school of thought.  Although I am also not a fan of grossly oversized details.  I found myself recently decalling a passenger car, and upsized the stripes from 5/8 inch to 1 inch just to make them visible- so I can understand that a scale 1/4" door seam might be a bit on the tiny side, at well under .002- you might need to make it a bit wider so we can see that the car has a door without a magnifying glass.  But 6" thick ladder rungs on some cars or those horrid stake pockets on the newer Bachmann flatcars are likely to have me looking elsewhere.

And just for context, the only passenger cars I have paid more than $50 for are my couple brass ones.

If you make a "shake the box" kit, I will buy it.  Big fan of the MT undecs in both freight and passenger.

Like a lot of folks, I miss the days when I could go to the hobby shop, ask for a "Santa Fe coach" and be shown a half dozen options ranging from Model Power to Pecos River Brass, with price points from $5 ti $100, and given the option to choose the one that was best for whatever I wanted it for.  Nowadays, few if any carry that kind of stock, and if I want one, I need to pre-order 6 months before it is produced, and the option I am left with after delivery is to keep it or try to auction if off.

[jdcolombo]

I've always been fascinated by which details matter to me and which don't.  And I've come to realize that it differs between engines, rolling stock and cabooses.

With engines, I need them to be accurate with respect to "spotting details" but I'm pretty forgiving about other stuff.  For example, the NKP's PA-1's had the front angled number boards (not the side number boards) and a Mars light over the main headlight.  I consider these "details" essential to an NKP model, along with correct paint.  But I don't pay much attention to whether the horn detail is correct (it never is) or whether the ladder detail is exactly right (ditto).  I don't care if my PA's have windshield wipers, etc.  On GP7/GP9 hood diesels, the NKP used a Mars light above the regular headlight that is very distinctive when you see the engine from the side.  I've added this detail to all my geeps, because it just isn't "NKP" without it.  But again, the horn detail is a "who cares" for me.  I own 10 LifeLike Berkshires; they are great operating models, with terrific slow-speed creep and mechanism smoothness.  But they all lack the signature Mars light that was on the Berks above the headlight post-1949.  It drives me crazy, but I haven't come up with an easy way to add this detail (3d printing is probably the needed route here).  But I don't count the number of sand lines, which varied from the S to S1, S2 and S3-series Berks, nor do I notice whether the trailing truck had roller bearings or not (the S3 Berks did).

With rolling stock, I'm pretty forgiving.  I focus on operations, so I'm not a stickler for rolling stock detail, particularly underbody detail that I'll never see or care about.  I do wish we had a more prototypical-sized coupler; all the available commercial couplers are so oversize that you can't ignore it.  But I don't count rivets; I don't pay much attention to whether the boxcar ends have the appropriate number of corrugations or even whether the roof is exactly correct.  I might notice whether a boxcar has a 6' or 8' door, but I might not.  Molded-on ladders are fine; roofwalks that aren't obviously 10' thick scale are OK, too - I don't need etched brass, just something that doesn't shout BAD MODEL.  What I really care about is operation: wheel sets that run smoothly, are in gauge, with lo-profile flanges that run on Code 55 track; body-mounted couplers; and proper car weighting so that you can back up a 25-car train of 40' boxcars through a #4 turnout.  I've pretty much replaced all my wheels with FVM's because they improve operation; no rolling stock goes on the layout without a body-mounted coupler; and I add weight wherever I can if the model is less than 1 oz.

Cabooses are more like engines to me.  They need to have the correct overall size, correct window spacing; and proper paint/number sequence.  No one has produced an accurate bay window caboose for the NKP; many years ago, I repainted a bunch of Model Power bay window cabeese, used Gold Medal Models roofwalks and detail parts where possible to make them look better, but the window spacing is still wrong, and it bugs me.  But I'm not going to scratchbuild an NKP bay, so for now it will have to do.  Fortunately, I commissioned an NKP 1000-series caboose on Shapeways a few years ago (now unavailable because of changes Shapeways made in its printing standards) and have about a dozen of these that look terrific, and Atlas did a version of their NE caboose in NKP paint that is pretty darn close to the steel cabeese the NKP inherited from the LE&W.

Again, at the end of the day, what I REALLY care about is operation.  The best-detailed engine in the world is worthless to me if it won't creep at under 1 smph, run extremely smoothly at low speed, and doesn't maintain excellent electrical pickup.   I can't abide rolling stock that derails; couplers that come apart; etc.  Give me a model that reasonably approximates the prototype and runs great, and I'm happy.

John C.

[nkalanaga]

I'm with Peteski and the others.  MT's detailing level works for me, and it isn't hard to add extra if I like.  I like operating boxcar doors, because they let me add grain doors, but don't look for them, and buy cars whether they have them or not.  Separate doors for sliding door boxcars are nice, though, because they allow for more variations than a cast-on door.  Etched roofwalks are nice, IF THEY STAY FLAT.  Otherwise, they actually look worse than the plastic ones.

The only reason I like separate ladders is that it makes it easier to shorten them.  I model 1974, and carving cast-on ladders from Dreadnaught ends is a pain.  On the other hand, most separate ladders look too bulky, so it's a tossup which is better.  For those modeling the roofwalk era, I'd say cast-on.

Get the proportions right, the details in the right place, and the trucks/couplers working well, and paint it nicely, and most customer will probably be satisfied.  Those who want extra details, or changed details, and that includes me occasionally, can do a little modeling.  If it's too fragile for common handling, I'll have to repair it anyway, sooner or later, so it might as well be redesigned.

[johnb]

There is more than just add on details to think about.

The MTL PS2 hopper is all but perfect, my UP car looks great except for the fact that the couplers are molded in the same gray as the car.

My BLMA PS-4000 looks even better than the MTL car, but tends to derail on my switching layout on code 80 #6 Atlas Customline switches

[Chris333]

I've heard it said that a majority of model railroaders don't even have an internet connection. I bet that is different now. Have no idea what the Railwire represents, but I hope there are more out there like us. To some trains are toys, but if you give them a nice car to play with they are happy and so are we. I used to tell Joe that about some MTL stuff. Make it look right and we're all happy. I doubt anyone ever picked up something at the hobby shop and said naaa too much detail. Maybe they didn't like the price, but when we are talking about something being the correct size or shape that generally doesn't cost more.

Give me molded on correctly shaped and placed details. I like etched roof walks, but not if they are bowed up and mangled during installation. I think MTL type roofwalks are fine if you can't do etched correctly.

[wes_sutton]

......Truth be told we get ten times of the number of people asking, begging, admonishing us for "too much detail" than we do customers asking for or admonishing us for "too little detail". The reasons we receive are wide and varied; too much detail means the models are too breakable, the details on your model take away from the lack of details on other models (yes, really.... ) and the biggest reason, if you didn't include so much detail, you price could be half of what it is.... (totally untrue but a common misconception)......

Love the question and might respond in more 'detail' later.....however, and I ain't saying who is right or wrong here, I was talking to a Bachperson at a show in the UK just a couple of months ago and that was his justification for the recent huge jump in the prices of the Graham Farish range.