[tolpuddleman]

I occasionally help out in a model railway shop - nothing too involved, just being on hand to look after things and so on but a real pleasure all the same.

As new models are introduced, so older models are traded-in as customers look to upgrade their stock.

One thought crossed my mind recently, and that is whether customers might regret parting with all their old stock too soon ?

I still believe there is a valid place on certain layouts for all those old Lima, Mainline, Airfix and Hornby items.

Yes, newer items really do 'lift' a layout, but if the older items are retained and run in conjunction with the newer ones, then one's layout can still depict a railway system in need of capital investment by running older, tired, and worn rolling stock in the background, whilst showcasing the latest rolling stock to the fore. This is what happens on the real railway, so it just might be worth hanging on to those older models a little bit longer yet.

 

[Richard Johnson]

*** I can't answer for others, but the older rolling stock isn't so much tired as quite inaccurate. For example incorrect underframes, wrong dimensions, heavy wheels, wrong wheel types, heavy mouldings, missing detail etc.... To me, having such stock on the layout would detract from my own objectives, old, new or otherwise.

Richard

 

[Ravenser]

It depends on the item. The biggest issue with the old generation diesels and electrics was the mechanism , so you might get away with old stock left on shed but you probably don't want to run stuff with pancake motors in it

I suspect in the next couple of years you'll see a lot less upgrading. In D+E most locos have already been made available in modern generation models. The only group of BR coaching stock still in real need of a new generation model is the air-con Mk2. Barring GWR , I don't see any new ranges of prenationalisation coaching stock either

What does that leave? You don't upgrade Bachmann split chassis steamers - you dispose of them when the chassis fails (hence the availability of chassis for these as seperate items) . So really its just some older Hornby tender drive steam engines still to be replaced

Most of the big clearout has taken place, at least in 4mm .

And this does raise the issue that there is still a great pile of Lima Hornby and Airfix/Mainline stock about, now going for very modest prices of £20-£40 . Before we worry too much about the hobby being priced out of reach, we can reflect that railway modelling on the cheap is still possible if you resort to the second hand market

 

[John H-T]

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 16 Dec 2008, 12:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>*** I can't answer for others, but the older rolling stock isn't so much tired as quite inaccurate. For example incorrect underframes, wrong dimensions, heavy wheels, wrong wheel types, heavy mouldings, missing detail etc.... To me, having such stock on the layout would detract from my own objectives, old, new or otherwise.

Richard

Richard,

I think you have hit on the main issue here. The reason for replacing stock is to get a better model. For example I intend to replace my Hornby Patriot "Duke of Sutherland" (which was the original Hornby Patriot Model) with the new Bachmann Model when it arrives.

I have several other older models which run quite happily with more recent models. It is a case of each model on its merits!

John.

 

[34C]

Same here. I am happy to run older product, often detailed, improved, rechassied, as required to bring it to a consistent standard with kit built and more recent better RTR items. If the basic moulding or casting was correct then it stays in use. The ancient Triang bogie brick wagon is a good example. On replacement diamond frame bogies, the accurate body with a repaint and added detail looks very well.

 

[Jerry]

On a running layout I don't really see the need to replace older stock providing it looks the part and still runs well. Yes, many older models are not so accurate or finely detailed, but can you really see the difference on a running model? I usually work to the idea that if you can't see something on a photograph taken at normal viewing distance then there is no point on putting it on the model. I admit I consider good running to be more important than strict accuracy.
I've been modelling since the early 1970's and still run Trix A3s. At my club the other night we compared one of them with the Hornby Railroad 'Flying Scotsman' and in appearance it stood up very well.
On the DVD of "Stoke Summit" Tony Wright admits to using locomotives such as Nucast V2s, not exactly modern models.
The new models I'm buying are to fill in the gaps, eg Bachman Mk1 2nds to replace the excess composites obtained when that was all that was available. Where I need to use composites I repaint the older models and upgrade them with flush glazing etc.
Jerry

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (Jerry @ 17 Dec 2008, 21:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>On a running layout I don't really see the need to replace older stock providing it looks the part and still runs well. Yes, many older models are not so accurate or finely detailed, but can you really see the difference on a running model? I usually work to the idea that if you can't see something on a photograph taken at normal viewing distance then there is no point on putting it on the model. I admit I consider good running to be more important than strict accuracy.
I've been modelling since the early 1970's and still run Trix A3s. At my club the other night we compared one of them with the Hornby Railroad 'Flying Scotsman' and in appearance it stood up very well.
On the DVD of "Stoke Summit" Tony Wright admits to using locomotives such as Nucast V2s, not exactly modern models.
The new models I'm buying are to fill in the gaps, eg Bachman Mk1 2nds to replace the excess composites obtained when that was all that was available. Where I need to use composites I repaint the older models and upgrade them with flush glazing etc.
Jerry

*** Can I see sides a scale 6" too thick, underframes at least a scale foot out in wheelbase (almost every open wagon by Dapol including most current ones), brakes not in line with wheels,steel framed underframes when wood frames should be there (ditto) , Underframes with incorrect brake rigging (much RTR prior to say '95), wrong wheels, overly heavy wheels etc etc... Absolutely, yes it stands out. Not just to me, but to most of those I model with - We aren't anal about it, we just notice when errors or details stand out as wrong, or when things are clearly missing, preferring to fix them!

Do we mind if others don't notice or don't care about the same things - not at all, each to his own, and on our layouts, as long as wheel standards are maintained (profile / all metal / appropriate back to back settings for the trackwork) then I/we also welcome visiting "detail unmodified" stock owned by friends and occasionally run our own unmodified stuff until such time as I have the incination to fix or replace it. (I'll probably need two lifetimes to get it all done, so I may as well play with it!)

Tony Wright by his own admission isn't any sort of "reference" for finer scale modelling: Stoke is an excellent and polular exhibition layout but at Tonys own admission, he's not overly fussed about fine detail (Not that there is anything wrong with older loco's that have had a bit of a detailing session - many brush up very well indeed)

Please don't be offended, but a Hornby railroad range loco hasn't exactly been state of the art for a decade or more...

Each to his own... Long as we enjoy the hobby

Richard

 

[stuartp]

Apart from a couple of teenage detailing projects where I seriously over-estimated my abilities, I've rarely scrapped or replaced a loco. The only exceptions are a 1980s Hornby Black 5 and two Hornby Ivatt 2-6-0s, but even those are on one side to be done up as scrapline locos for a future project.

Wherever possible I overhaul and refurbish - I bought a new Bachmann Jubillee last year, I'm looking forward to refurbishing and detailing my old Mainline one to the same standard. The chassis has been replaced with a Bachmann 'Royal Scot' one, and the body will be superdetailed with Comet and scratchbuilt parts using the new model as a guide as to how much detail to incorporate.

But then maybe I'm a tight git.

 

[SRman]

You probably are, Stuart!!!!!

Seriously, there is something to be said for using the old models to practice and improve our techniques before we let ourselves loose on more expensive modern items. USe an old locomotive for weathering practice. Or try lining one with that new bow pen you got , ooohhh, 25 years ago (was it really that long ago? - I looked at some of my unfinished projects and ralised that that's how long ago I strted them!). Certainly, some of those older models don't fetch much on resale, so we might as well use them to further our own ends.

Also, I "recycle" many older coaches by using them as the base for completely different coaches using brass sides (such as Comet ones). My next project is to do some different Pullman coaches using the older Hornby "Lucille" models as a starting point and Comet sides. Before the new lit Pullmans came along I had stocked up on the older models for two complete trains worth, one Bournemouth Belle and one Golden Arrow (no, I don't run them both at the same time!!). The Bournemouth Belle got the newer coaches (or should that be "cars"??) and the Golden Arrow will get the "refurbished" ones with a better variety of types.

Mainline (Palitoy) BR mark 1 coaches make good bases for Comet Bulleid sides because their gutters were set a little low; mounting the sides so that the top rests on the gutters produces a better Bulleid profile.

Then, of course, there's the nostalgia thing. Some of the older models may not be up to current standards but they cam bring back memories of our more youthful days when theywere new.

 

[barrymx5]

QUOTE * I can't answer for others, but the older rolling stock isn't so much tired as quite inaccurate.

I much agree. Yes there are exceptions eg the simple bogie swap, but on the whole I too phase out older inaccurate stock as more accurate models come available. I have however retained the original Hornby M7 and Sir Dinadin to contrast with the current superb models but I do not run them - they are static in a case and produced as appropriate as conversation pieces. Until there is a better 2P I have to run the only RTR model available (especially as it is in Prussian Blue!). My difficult decision is about those early kits I produced and did not make a great job of. The effort expended makes it difficult to throw them and no one would be willing to pay good money for them!
I suspect the next clear-out will be when good value sound becomes available generally on RTR locos and the old silent versions will be replaced. Similarly lighting in RTR coaches. Optimist? Me?

 

[Brian Considine]

I have a few older items which usually remain in the display cabinet.

Over the last couple of years I have replaced most, if not all my "shortie" HO coaches with 1 : 87 length ones & with very few exceptions replaced any rolling stock that is not close coupled.

Some rolling stock has been modified with close coupling conversions which improves the appearance no end.

 

[Fireline]

To be honest, you could look at my engines and tell me that they are inaccurate, or the frames are the wrong way round, or there is a rivet in the wrong place, and I simply wouldn't know. As I will have gradients on my line, the older Hornby engines are actually preferable due to the extra weight in them. I have a variety of older and newer stock. For example, I have the old style Maunsell coaches, but I am looking longingly at the new versions. I replaced a handful of old Gresley coaches with the new ones when they came out. I have replaced a few older engines, such as the original Hornby Pannier, but in most cases it is due to them being life expired, rather than an old design.

I consider myself to be a fairly serious collector, but to me the accuracy of the model to the original item is not paramount. Being a steam fan who wasn't born until 1975, I never saw any run in BR service. To me, it is whether the model itself looks the part. Clearly, there are a few that have been wide of the mark. Sometimes, it's just the best they can do.

 

[nzpaul]

Hi All
Before I became interested in things LNER about 15 years ago, I'd collected all sorts of locos that I liked, HSTs, Duchess, Hall and so on. Until recently all were stuffed in a box stored in a cupboard. Along comes 3 year old son & decides he likes the look of dad's trains ......you get the rest. So a 5" x 4" twin oval train set has been built that can be set up & taken down easily & out came all of the old trains. I have to say, they may be wholely obsoleted by modern standards but they are tough. Those old pancakes & X04's may be a bit noisey & run too fast but they can withstand all kinds of mishaps & they're quite strong performers once warmed up. It'll be interesting to see how some of the bigger Railroad series stuff goes by comparison, afterall it's fitted with the same running gear as the top of the line models (Flying Scotsman anyway). I dare say I'll find out soon enough, someone has taken a real shine to "Spencer" the shiny sleek engine. (no, no, not me...honest)

Moral: Keep the oldies for the kids, saves the flash expensive ones from little fingers.

PS: Young son makes it easier to get trains past the wife......it works, i have proof.

Cheers
Paul M

 

[Guest]

Hiya

Just because something is new and a better product doesnt make it a better model

The Bachmann 40 is not as good as the lima one, and their class 25 is nothing like the real thing compared to the Hornby one. Hornby's class 56 has shape errors that mean its not as good as the mainline one and their 31, likewise is not as good as the Lima one that went before.

Chassis wise, no question but sometimes manufacturers respond to market forces that dont know what they want. The Bachmann 47 all wheel drive chassis is not as reliable and user friendly as the Heljan A1A-A1A chassis.

I guess the pint is don't instantly trade something in because a new one comes out - it might not be better. Sometimes a combination of the old and the new is the best answer to a decent model.

Cheers

Jim

 

[marshlander]

As one who's interested in running trains in the landscape, the older models are fine, particularly as donors- most of my MUs run on Mk1 Triang chassis with cosmetic whitemetal shoebeams... come to that, they shoes don't quite touch the third rail either!
The old stock makes good donor material, too- the Caley sides can be chopped about to make pushpull stock and the clerestories sliced make into reasonable birdcage stock with a bit of work on doorhandles and ends- I prefer working in plastic and for the quantities of stock needed brass kits would be prohibitively expensive... and there's something quite satisfying about chopping, hacking and filling...
and if you do mess up, there's another donor for £5...
I agree with the point re newer locos- their finer wheels don't have the grip on gradients that the old steamrollers do- more prototypical, but the layouts's ruling 1 in 66 won't change! Had to take the weights out of the Bachmann Mk1s to suit the new City Of Wells, but the old L1 waltzed up with no problem! Maybe the traction tyres on the V will do the trick... but the old one is still doing the job...

 

[SRman]

nzpaul said QUOTE Moral: Keep the oldies for the kids, saves the flash expensive ones from little fingers.

That reminds me; I used an old Triang 0-4-0T "Nellie" type loco for an experiment that worked. I used Milliput to make up a Thomas the Tank style face, repainted it and now produce it when young kids visit. They can run it at breakneck speeds, reverse it suddenly (from high speeds!) and also give it a name. And I have no qualms about them damaging it or abusing it while my "good" stock remains untouched and undamaged. The locomotive remains almost indestructible, and I do have a spare body available just in case it ever does suffer damage.

 

[christoph]

Hello,

coming back to the original question, I am one of those people who have sold old stock in favour of new stock, even though that was many years ago. As I am German, and we are talking about German rolling stock in H0 my reply might be in the wrong section, though.

I had built a new layout then which was totally different from the older one. The old one was set in Germany in the late 1970s/early 1980s with a city theme. No steam, plenty of electrics and diesels. The first break came when Roco introduced their new range of coached with had a scale length. Out went the old short ones, in came the new. The second break came with the new layout. That was 1950s/1960s branchline layout modelled after a real station. Some locos and coaches, even some of the relatively new ones, which were no longer adequate went out and in came steam locos which operated on the line modelled. The main reason was, that I felt I no longer needed some models and the money came handy to buy new rolling stock. I frequently had a table at a swapmeet and more often than not came back not with money but different models!

Now, about twenty years later, I do regret the sale of some models, even though I have kept most. In compensation I have bought back most types of locos I had sold many years ago, in some cases not even the latest version but the version I had then, out of pure nostalgia!

In brief, there are good reasons to sell old models, money, a new layout or dramatic improvements compared to the older models but with hindsight and for sentimental reasons I regret it.

Kind regards from Kassel, Germany

Christoph

 

[SRman]

It's partly the head and heart argument. The head says "We need the money to invest in the new layout and the old stock won't belong on the new one" but the heart says "But I like the old stock and want to keep it". Then, later on, the heart kicks in again and wants that nostalgic feeling. Sure the new models are much better in many respects, especially running qualities, but the old ones had some character to them. I still get nostalgic looking through some of the old Triang catalogues - I marvel at how primitive the models look compared to the current crop of super-detailed ones, yet somehow they still appeal, inaccuracies, warts and all.

Incidentally, I also have an old Fleischmann catalogue and well remember hankering after some of those models. They were so much better detailed and finishd than the British ones of the time, but even so, the coaches in particular were well short of scale length. I didn't (and still don't!) have sufficient knowledge of German / European stock to judge the accuracy of all the models - they just looked good to me.

 

[Alan D]

I am new to the forum and have been reading a few of the topics but this one, even though abandoned since december, sparked a thought or two for me. I love all the new stuff I see in the shops today and how nicely made these items are, but I also notice the expense for such items. My solution is to take old rolling stock and re-vamp it. so far I have revamped 3 old triang coaches and an old triang 101 DMU and I find it quite satisfying to see my efforts running on the track. And I am certainly not a rivet counter, it's the atmosphere I'm after. I don't actually care if the bogies are particularly not correct for the style of carraige. With so many old triang items kicking about in varying degrees of distress it's quite nice for me to try and breathe new life into the old rolling stock. The triang coach was alright in it's day and with a little bit of plasticard, Railmatch paint and HMRS or Fox transfers and a lot of patience and care you can produce something which would certainly look fine on any layout. I am currently locating old cattle wagons (for approx £2,00-£5.00), repainting, re-numbering and re-wheeling them. I have five just now and has cost me very little, given me a few hours of pleasure and something to run on my layout into the bargain. But I would say, if you have never tackled anything like this before, take it easy on yourself, get advice on painting techniques so you don't end up with a globby mess and mostly - take your time - it is meant to be theraputic. If you are the impatient type save up and buy RTR.

 

[6c8h]

QUOTE (marshlander @ 23 Dec 2008, 11:15) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I agree with the point re newer locos- their finer wheels don't have the grip on gradients that the old steamrollers do- more prototypical, but the layouts's ruling 1 in 66 won't change! Had to take the weights out of the Bachmann Mk1s to suit the new City Of Wells, but the old L1 waltzed up with no problem! Maybe the traction tyres on the V will do the trick... but the old one is still doing the job...

That's the prototype imitating the model methinks - Unrebuilt Bullieds' were described to me, as 'old slippy shoes' by an ex-Exeter SR driver !!!.

As an old duffer with experience going back to 1977 - I am surprised at the lighter weight generally of new locos.

Also on a conversational note it was'nt necessarily all bad in those days - even on the same loco ! - see triang Brush class 31 - great roof detail - but a lead lump of a driving mechanism.

Mainline body detailing was excellent too - but don't mention the split chassis !!!!!

Also I feel that the current Britannia tender sideframes are far less detailed than the '80s ringfield chassis....