N-Scale Rewards Program Off to Strong Start

[VonRyan]

On my workbench every model becomes a kit. 

And just for you there should be a third header: "Mess"

[peteski]

And just for you there should be a third header: "Mess"

Neah!  All the "kit" parts are perfectly organized and accounted for.  They are all in perfect order. 

[gdmichaels]

What if an item doesn't have a product code nor a manufacturer/company name?
I have a cast-resin baggage car kit that has neither.

 

I have two thoughts on that.

1) Simply use "Other" for Manufacturer and make up a product code like BAGKIT1.  For a body style, that is what '000' is for.

2) Skip it and go after some low hanging fruit (like an old Walthers catalog).

[JMaurer1]

Hey, the low hanging fruit is mine! Already got my old Walthers catalogs out...

[Lemosteam]

Please include an export to excel function.  this way folks can make lists of what they currently own without having to turn to an inventory app.

[VonRyan]

 

I have two thoughts on that.

1) Simply use "Other" for Manufacturer and make up a product code like BAGKIT1.  For a body style, that is what '000' is for.

2) Skip it and go after some low hanging fruit (like an old Walthers catalog).

I was speaking more in terms of a general contribution rather than actually participating in the contest.
The baggage car kit is a USSR prototype and is only offered for sale occasionally on eBay by a friend of the guy who actually makes the kits. Of course, other than the body, the rest of the parts are pretty much just all cast copies of parts from the old Piko USSR coaches, but that's beside the point.

[peteski]

Cody, if this is just someones personal casting of a baggage car (he is not selling it under some company name, and will only probably make less than a dozen total), is it really considered a viable entry for the database?  How far should we take this database?

BTW, are they well made, and how do I get my hands on one of those? 

[VonRyan]

Cody, if this is just someones personal casting of a baggage car (he is not selling it under some company name, and will only probably make less than a dozen total), is it really considered a viable entry for the database?  How far should we take this database?

BTW, are they well made, and how do I get my hands on one of those? 

Well it's a kit, so it's a viable entry to me. Anything N-scale that has been "manufactured" should be included if this is to be an all-encompassing N-Scale database.


As to how well the kit is made, it'd say it's halfway decent. The body casting I got needs only a smidgen of straightening in the side. The rest of the parts I can care less about since they're copies of Piko parts. The supplied underframe is different from the Piko one only in details. Everything else is the same. So I simply plan on getting a Piko coach and using the underframe/trucks from that.

You can get one on eBay. https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/252303743792

[gdmichaels]

I would suggest using a manufacturer called "Piko_Clone" for this one.  Would this class of passenger car be considered Heavyweight?  Streamlined?  Corrugated?  Russian?

I would think the taxonomy could be: Passenger Car, Heavyweight, SB-7 Baggage

Class: Rolling Stock
Type: Passenger
SubType: Heavyweight
Variety: SB-7 Baggage

This type of thing is what would really benefit from a couple of sentences review.  When people see a more obscure item like this that is readily available they REALLY want to get your impression on how well made it is.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I'm not sure resin or wood kits should be included. I have made my own resin kits - the FGE 5145/5237 and I sure as hell don't want them to be in the database. I would suggest that products must have a manufacturer, description and sku number to be a viable product.

I'm thinking along the line of Burt Industries and other - garbage - that tends to pile up online. Mark came to a similar realization when doing his database.

Another concern I would have is with rapid prototype models. These items are quite literally vaporware unless someone decides to buy it. So you may have catalog entries of items now discontinued that were never produced in the first place.

Because this is a resource for people looking to add or research a collection, I would suggest that absolute priority should be given to plastic RTR items, then brass and finally kits.

[JMaurer1]

I agree...if it was a kit, it should be a kit that was 'massed produced'. Dimi Trains (now Intermountain) comes to mind. They only produced kits, but they produced thousands of them instead of tens of them. Also the kit question shouldn't be a Y/N question. Intermountain produced RTR AND kits of the same cars. Maybe Y/N/Both.

[gdmichaels]

I am mostly in agreement with both daniel_leavitt2000 and JMaurer1.

JMaurer1's comment about Intermountain (I bought many of these kits myself in the 90's) makes me think that mass-produced high quality kits should be given a reasonably high priority.  That was what I was thinking when this topic first came up.  It is why I added the RTR field to the database.  But I am in agreement that there is a lot of lower-quality stuff that should be avoided.

Fortunately it is a lot easier to get good data about the mass-produced stuff than obscure low-quality items, so in terms of labor to collect and enter data, I don't see that a lot of people will bother with the real crap. 

The highest priority is definitely to plastic, mass-produced, actually-delivered models.  After that I would say plastic, mass-produced, actually-delivered kits and brass, mass-produced, name-brand brass would also be welcomed by the community.  I am not sure I could pick one over the other, but  I would definitely prefer manufacturer-painted brass over unpainted brass.

As for the specific kit mentioned it seems that it was made in some quantity and that the quality is at least mid-grade.  I would just like whomever enters a kit like this to research who the real manufacturer is and try to determine a product/sku.  Anyone who produces something like this has that information *somewhere* even if it does not appear on the eBay listing.

I would also welcome a volunteer to admin and help oversee the separation of the wheat from the chaff.  PM me if you are interested in helping out.

[JMaurer1]

Hey! I just got my TopHobby Email Update and there it is right in the update: Help build the ultimate N scale database. Thanks Vince!

[VonRyan]

Then comes the question as to what is considered "mass produced".
I was gearing up to write entires for the various rolling stock kits that the first generation of Camden & Amboy Models produced back in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm hesitant to do so now since from what I'm reading I gather that kits don't matter unless they're the Intermountain kits.

[JMaurer1]

Not that my opinion matters, but I would think that Camden and Amboy would be considered a viable kit manufacturer. They were readily available in hobby stores and produced in higher numbers. Dimi (aka Titchy), Fine N Scale, Funaro & Camerlengo, Gloor Craft, RS Laser kits, Laserkit, and Railhead (to name a few) I would also think would count. Heck, even MDC/Roundhouse cars were 'shack the box' kits since some of the parts needed to still be installed (I just put together a 36' reefer last weekend and you needed to attach the roof walk, reefer hatches, brake wheel, and trucks). But that's just me...