Generic N Scale Vehicles

[cfritschle]

Thanks to everyone that has responded so far; however, I am not sure I am getting any closer to a definitive answer.   

The tooling for an injected molded or diecast vehicle model is expensive.  If it is a model of a Ford or International, the licensing fee does not add all that much to the overall cost compared to what some of the other car and truck manufacturers charge, assuming you can get the model approved at all. 

We have several manufacturers of cast resin and cast metal vehicles who are willing to take their chances and not seek licenses from the prototype manufacturers.  For this reason I don't see a need for a "major" manufacturer like Classic Metal Works, Atlas or Athearn to produce generic vehicles, especially if the tooling cost per vehicle is going to be the same as those that replicate specific prototypes.

Dan's question about the cost of the Auto Scenes is the same one I have.  My guess is their production runs are lower in number than the offerings of say CMW or Atlas or Athearn, so they have to recover their tooling costs on a fewer number of models.

So while many have indicated a desire to have generic models, what would be the preferred manufacturing method, and what would you consider a reasonable price per unit?

Carter

[Denver Road Doug]

Sorry, I'll admit I'm not current with the n-scale vehicle landscape so maybe I'm not understanding the question.

It seems to me there may be two different issues.  One, is folks that are maybe looking to save licensing fees or manufacturing costs by having generic and/or less-detailed cars for parking garages and autoracks.   Then another side is looking for ways to get cars of a certain make, model, and year that they think cannot be done at the quality of Atlas, Busch, et al.   Again, I don't think there's some grand idea of wanting foobs, it's more a case of maybe we think that's the only way it gets done.

For me, I've never declined to purchase any n-scale vehicle by virtue of its price.   So to ask me what the magic price is, well, I don't really think I can answer that since I'm buying at the high-end price point.  Now, admittedly I'm not buying a hundred, and maybe it means I buy 4 instead of 5, but the price is not a complete deterrent.   About the only thing that slows me down is the difficulty in acquiring said models as they are often overseas releases in limited quantity etc.   I do concede that I am in the minority on all this.   To say there aren't folks that are extremely price conscious would be naive.  But, there's always a market for both high end and "Model Power blister packs".

If you say there's manufacturers lined up, I say, the proof is in the pudding.   Doesn't seem to be a ton of vehicle releases of late.   

Regarding method, I'll say that there's a pretty serious delineation between resin/cast metal versus "something with a clear window".   I would agree it to be foolish to run generic versions of the latter given the additional costs involved.  To put it another way, modelers shouldn't expect a uber-nice vehicle model to fill up an autorack anyway.  (although, the argument can be made for a "see-through" autorack panel to have some light peeking through, and certainly for open-air autoracks)

[cfritschle]

It appears that everyone that wanted to weigh in on this topic has.  I really appreciate those who have participated in this discussion. 

The references to the video game vehicles (virtual cars?) reminded me that MakeMyModel offered both generic and prototype specific vehicle models in the 2006 to 2007 time frame.  3D printing has made some progress since then, as demonstrated by some of the models currently offered through Shapeways.  Perhaps 3D printing will be the best way to obtain models of the “challenging to produce” vehicles.  I happened to check out the 1/87th Vehicle Club’s new products page yesterday, and saw that there was a manufacturer offering 3D printed HO scale vehicles based on North American prototypes.

And as mentioned earlier in this topic, for those wanting more “ready to place” vehicle models, there are some  1:150 and 1:148 scale “foreign” models that can be used as stand-ins for similar appearing “North American” prototypes.  I will continue my efforts to get comparison photos added to the N Scale Vehicle Association’s Resource page under Nearly N Scale models.  http://nscalevehicles.org/n_gauge_models.php  Note:  There is an error on the second page of the TomyTec vehicles.  Car Collections 5 and 6 are missing, but we are trying to get that fixed.

In reviewing what has been produced as N gauge, TomyTec alone has approximately 50 body styles in their Car Collection series.  And, Oxford Diecast will soon have an Austin Mini available.  Even at 1:148 scale, the Mini may not look that bad next to a 1:160 vehicle since the prototype was so small.

Again, I want to thank everyone for enlightening me with their thoughts on generic vehicle models.

Carter

[peteski]

And, Oxford Diecast will soon have an Austin Mini available.  Even at 1:148 scale, the Mini may not look that bad next to a 1:160 vehicle since the prototype was so small.

Again, I want to thank everyone for enlightening me with their thoughts on generic vehicle models.

Carter

I bought couple of the Oxford offerings, but to me those are way too large to be usable.  Especially the VW bus. COmpared to a 1:160 scale model, that thing is huge!  I suppose it might be useful if it was either all by itself, or with a group of 1:148 Oxford vehicles on a road away from any buildings and trains.

[jimmo]

I bought couple of the Oxford offerings, but to me those are way too large to be usable.  Especially the VW bus. COmpared to a 1:160 scale model, that thing is huge!  I suppose it might be useful if it was either all by itself, or with a group of 1:148 Oxford vehicles on a road away from any buildings and trains.

I had a similar experience with one of those 1/150 TomyTec Prius models. Beautiful model but pretty much dwarfs my Caprice and Crown Vics. It's almost a scale foot longer than a 1/160 scale Prius. Distance required.

Are you planning an English section on our layout, Peteski?

[nkalanaga]

That's one of the "problems" with specific prototype vehicles.  If they're out of scale. or out of proportion, anyone familiar with vehicles will notice it.  A generic vehicle, on the other hand, can be acceptable as long as the overall size is correct, simply because no one knows how big it should be.  That's the nice thing about the Toyota Crowns.  They are out of scale for 1:160, but still look reasonable for a "large car", so most viewers will accept them, without asking what they represent.  The Tomy Datsun pickups are the same way.  The prototype was small enough that the oversize model still looks like a small American truck.  In that sense, both are already being sold, in North America, as "generic" vehicles.

Of course, the model still has to be within the common size range for similar prototypes, or even people not familiar with prototype vehicle will sense something is wrong.

[nkalanaga]

"I think the concept of generic vehicles is a great one, but (my modern bias is coming into play here) - there seem to be tons of 40's and 50's models out there - and so very little for modern day (and I am really loose on my definition of modern - I'll take from the 1970-today.)"

Lou:  So many of today's cars look alike anyway that a generic model would be simple - maybe.  The hard part might be coming up with one that doesn't look like a prototype somewhere.  I think the designers have a set of patterns for hoods, bodies, trunks, etc, and just mix-and-match them to create new models...

[Specter3]

I have been asking in every vehicle thread I run across for generic vehicles. I have 5 boxes of toyota crowns scattered over a couple modules with some repaints to cut down on uniformity. 3 or 4 more options like the crown say a generic mid 70s pickup, a K car clone, a round 90s caprice looking thing, a two door 70s sedan with a big trunk, a first gen minivan, and an early taurus clone would cover a lot of ground. OK so that is six but you get the point. Two pieces with the wheels and bottom done in clear to have windows, buyer paints the tires and bottom.

[kelticsylk]

Back in the day manufacturers like Varney produced vacumn formed vehicles that I presume were relatively inexpensive. I'm quessing these were acceptable. John Allen used them even though other items on his layout were highly detailed. Then again he may not have been a car guy.

As for me, well I'm still waiting for Johnny Lightning to produce a 68-69 Chevelle with a correct roof line 

Seriously though, I do wonder why those 1:50 Mini-Wheels that came with some 1:64 cars could be so detailed and realistic while products from WS fall short. Even if they are generic (I personnally never noticed until it was mentioned here) some of them are still kinda "clunky" compared to Mini Metals and some of the resin cars I recently purchased from 'Rasuten" here on the forum. Once again, the average model railroader may not worry about how close scale cars and trucks are to the real thing. They just want something to populate their roadways.

On the other hand, many details seen on N scale models are grossly oversize so they can be seen. The stainless trim on a '57 Chevy reduced 160 times is barely, if at all, visible...

1:25 Scale

1:160 Scale

So in a sense, even a detailed and fine scale model is generic.

Fortunately for us "transition era" modelers, US manufacturers often used the same body style for a number of years, so they are generic. A 1949 Chevy looks the same as a 1954 except for minute details that should be hard to see in N scale. The same thing goes for any vehicle style built over several years. The Mack model B was produced for over 13 years...

Mack Model B

It can be used to model any era from 1953 to 1966. The Mack model AC body was used for decades (1916-1939)...

Mack Model AC

I also agree that WS models are too expensive, especially compared to the price I paid for the detailed resin cars I purchased. Price in general is a concern especially on larger layouts. 100 cars at $15 a throw is a large chunk of change in anybody's wallet (unless you buy 12 a year over 8 years or so  ).

One thing I find interesting in reading this thread is that European and Asian manufacturers seem to produce a wide variety of vehicles, while American producers  seem somewhat limited. That might be because only the most popular makes (IE Chevy and Ford) are reproduced as scale models. Something similar to the situation with locomotives with the predominance of diesels and the dearth of anything but EMD, ALCO and GE models.

I'm thinking only the garage variety producers with low production runs can provide the variety being discussed here. The issue is that there aren't enough of them out there.

Sorry for the rather verbose contribution. Thanks for listening.

[peteski]

I had a similar experience with one of those 1/150 TomyTec Prius models. Beautiful model but pretty much dwarfs my Caprice and Crown Vics. It's almost a scale foot longer than a 1/160 scale Prius. Distance required.

Are you planning an English section on our layout, Peteski?

LOL, I'm not planning anything right now.

If I could, I would have several layouts: one European prototype, one Japanese, then couple of US prototype, one in the steam-diesel transition, and one modern.

Maybe someday I'll just settle on building few N-Trak modules depicting the above themes. 

[DKS]

Then again he may not have been a car guy.

And therein lies a Pandora's Box for model railroaders. For a layout to be considered truly outstanding in every respect, one must be a car guy, a truck guy, a building guy, a tree guy, a bridge guy--ad infinitum--in addition to being a train guy. Can anyone claim to be such a person? Is it even practical? Motion picture producers striving for historical accuracy hire teams of specialists, and even then they tend to get something wrong. (This is a rhetorical question, just to be clear.)

Sorry for the thread drift, but this is the sort of philosophical modeling conundrum that nags at me sometimes.

[VonRyan]

LOL, I'm not planning anything right now.

If I could, I would have several layouts: one European prototype, one Japanese, then couple of US prototype, one in the steam-diesel transition, and one modern.

Maybe someday I'll just settle on building few N-Trak modules depicting the above themes. 

You'll need two European layouts/modules. One for continental, the other for British.


-Cody F.

[jimmo]

And therein lies a Pandora's Box for model railroaders. For a layout to be considered truly outstanding in every respect, one must be a car guy, a truck guy, a building guy, a tree guy, a bridge guy--ad infinitum--in addition to being a train guy. Can anyone claim to be such a person? Is it even practical? Motion picture producers striving for historical accuracy hire teams of specialists, and even then they tend to get something wrong. (This is a rhetorical question, just to be clear.)

Sorry for the thread drift, but this is the sort of philosophical modeling conundrum that nags at me sometimes.

If you added aircraft (and some watercraft) to that list, you just described me, David.

Seriously, I totally agree with you on this issue. The problem with me is I NEED accurate vehicles because once you get familiar with various prototypes--just like with your trains--you kind of know better and you can't get away with under par models.

Sometimes I wished that I didn't know the difference between a Peterbilt 377 and a 379, it would make my modeling efforts a lot simpler. If I could just plunk down some of those cheapo Chinese 1/150 scale cars and be content with them, I could get on with my railroading.

Model railroading is unique in the fact that it's the only hobby (that I know of) were we have to model everything. It's also the reason I love it so much.

[DKS]

Model railroading is unique in the fact that it's the only hobby (that I know of) were we have to model everything. It's also the reason I love it so much.

Bingo.

IIRC, many years ago there was a model railroader who adamantly insisted that model railroaders should model only a railroad and whatever it owned. So, his layout consisted of track and roadbed, with extensions off the sides to support signals and railroad-owned buildings. Nothing else--no scenery, roads, other buildings, nothing. Very strange indeed. All the same, here was a fellow who solved this problem of modeling everything.

[jimmo]

That's what I would call "tunnel vision modeling."

Personally I like the variety of modeling challenges. Unlike some of the other modeling hobbies, the fact that we have to model an environment in order for it all to work makes the challenge all that much more fulfilling.

Getting back to Carter's original thread, IMHO generic vehicles are fine for those who can use them. As for Willmodels, you won't see any in my product lineup. Although my Crown Vics and Chevy Caprices can be considered as close to generic as a car model can get--especially if you paint them in different colors.