Shake-the-box meets Intermountain.

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

-- snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com moderator: snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com moderator: snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com co-moderator: snipped-for-privacy@Yahoogroups.com

"Trainman" <

Right on. You can add craftsman kits into the mix as well.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

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.

```````` 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

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.

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!

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 ==========

Mark Newt>

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

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

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.

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 :)

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)?

My priority is to have detailed and accurate rollingstock to complement my detailed and accurate locomotives.

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.

Dan Merkel wrote: >

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.

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

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

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!

The new Kadee covered hopper cars are nearly $40. The prices are getting obscene on the RTR stuff.