Is Car underside detail important to you?

[Bessemer Bob]

One of the areas I always feel that I am not with the masses about is the underside detail of freight cars. My question is why it seems manufacturers are always raving about the detail of the underside, brake rigging etc. For me my cars spend 90% of their lives right side up riding the rails, where I never see the underside. I would rather less detail go into this area and possible savings go into the car to be passed onto us the consumer. Thoughts opinions?


Please vote if you feel this detail is important to you....

[zosimas]

All I care about is what's visible.

[seanm]

I put NO, but I have to say, there are some cars that I have that seem to have spectacular undersides. I am thinking of one of my MT UP boxcars... When I pulled it out of the box it was amazing looking to me. Now, as a general rule, I don't care because I consider all my cars "runners" and I do not see the undersides. I do care about the look of the wheels and trucks. I frequently paint my wheels and weather my trucks, so those are important.

[DrifterNL]

I put YES.
Depending on the freight car (and layout height) a lot of underside detail is visible and once weathered stands out even more and brings that freight car to life (so to speak).

[woodone]

I put NO.
Like Bob, my cars spend 99.9 percent of their time right side up!

[subwaync]

"Maybe" would have been my answer because it all depends on the way the car looks rolling down the tracks. Some cars sit higher than others or have more exposed while rolling. Those cars I would want the details to be there the others that sit lower it really doesn't matter. All in as I saw stated above what's visible.

[pmh]

I put NO. If I see the underside, the car is not doing what it should, rolling on the rails.

[russtrnmn]

I put no. About the only cars I can think to have detaied under sides would be tank cars.

[baronjutter]

If the detail is clearly visible from the side then it's great, but if you can't see it I don't care. Just like with buildings, you don't need to paint, detail, or even include walls you won't see just like a movie set. BUT for many people it's not just how they look on the layout that matters, it's how they look when you hold them in your hand and examine them. I think if you are attracted to the hobby for making realistic railroad scenes you don't really care about undersides, but if you get into the hobby more to collect fine models, then you probably would. I'd be pissed if I bought one of those nice 1:24 scale metal model cars and it didn't have an amazingly detailed engine under the hood, or a perfectly detailed underbody.

But for me I'm not collecting models, I'm building scenes so anything not visible in my scenes can be easily omitted.

[ChicagoNW]

I believe that as runners, we N Scalers don't put the premium on details, that those guys in the bigger scales do.

Think about it, where as, they are stuck running peddler freights, we run cross country express trains. When you only have the space to run a ten car train, you spend a lot of time, looking at those ten cars. The problem gets worse the smaller the fraction gets. When you get to G you only have the room for a trolley in the space of an N scale layout. Go bigger than G and you have to make the things actually operate like the real ones do.

Of course, then there are those people, that have too much money and the ears of the manufacturers. They want exact replicas of the equipment, no matter, the cost. Since they are screaming into the ears of the marketing department, those of us, that actually run trains, not collect them, we get overpriced museum pieces, instead of equipment that can be handled and transported. Because of them we get a boxcar with a hundred parts instead ten different cars made of ten parts with a multitude of paint schemes.

I have some of the high end two bay covered hoppers. When I put them in with a dozen ones from Atlas, they don't shine. They are just another hopper car in a string of twenty. Those brass etched roofwalks and detailed hopper door mechanisms just can't be seen as they roll past my eyes as I sit and watch trains.

You really can't see the details on the real thing as they pass by you at the crossing either. Yeah, you can see all the 13mm bolt heads when the car is sitting on a siding for a week, as you take pictures, underneath it, lying on the track, but try finding one as you drive by it at 35mph.

[russtrnmn]

I look at nscale trains as seeing a 1:1 at a distance lets say about 1/4 of a mile. I can't see lift rings and bolt heads from that distance. So it is not that important for my models. I bought some Athearn and Walthers rolling stock lately. They have good detail but not overboard. They also have reasonable prices. I also like the FVM rolling stock for about the same reason. MT halso has some good lookin stuff.
I don't mind paying a bit more for hoppers and tank cars because they tend to have more exterior details. A plastic roof walk can be improved by washes or dark chalk between the raised areas.
I don't like the plain Jane stuff from the 70's and early 80's but the newer stuff does look better moving or not.

[JKeenan0407]

Also a No........I agree that the upper stuff is what I look at. And as someone said, viewed from a few feet what can you really see besides either a box, tank, hopper, etc. The paint color is most important to me. Some of the cars are just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too shiney.

[code40]

I put 'no'. I have buildings on my layout that have a slab of black plywood as a back wall - no point worrying about what can't be seen.

[grrf]

"Of course, then there are those people, that have too much money and the ears of the manufacturers. They want exact replicas of the equipment, no matter, the cost. Since they are screaming into the ears of the marketing department, those of us, that actually run trains, not collect them, we get overpriced museum pieces, instead of equipment that can be handled and transported. Because of them we get a boxcar with a hundred parts instead ten different cars made of ten parts with a multitude of paint schemes. "....chicago nw

it was this that lead to the bankruptcy of many european manufacturers imo....

models became too complicated and to expensive and to delicate for the "common" man and those that wanted and could afford such models , could not buy enough to make it worthwhile.

[Sean Barry]

I put yes. I run trains and I collect trains. I'll buy a piece, play with it a while and sometimes resell it. Buy high sell low! My current layout is 45" high. I have a little work area and DC test track under a portion of the layout. The rails are 1 ft in front of me at eye level so I can see the bottom detail from that perspective.

PICT0001.jpgPICT0004.jpgI do agree some detail is a bit overboard. I have some Bluford Shops hoppers and they have hose detail sticking out on both ends? Now, I kinda thought the magnetic trip pin on MTs and such represented that? About all the hose detail is good for is breaking off in your hand.

Now for the kicker.....I pulled an Athearn caboose off a shelf to take pics and some of the fancy bottom detail broke off in my hand I may want to change my vote.

[jpwisc]

I put "Yes". I don't have a large fleet, but I do like the details. I photograph my equipment from a short distance and there are some things that I want to see. I like to see the air reservoirs and brake piping.

I look at the cars that I got twenty years ago and my newers cars blow them away. In a unit train, details tend to not be so important as the viewer is looking at the train, not individual cars. But when I have a single car spotted at an industry I want it to look real, I want crossover platforms, cut levers and so on. I want my empty center beam bulkheads to have tie down cables. The details to me are what keep our equipment from looking like toys, but I also know I am in the minority on this one. Most people prefer quantity over quality.

I woud rather have 150 detailed cars than 1500 plain Jane cars.

[code40]

I put "Yes". I don't have a large fleet, but I do like the details. I photograph my equipment from a short distance and there are some things that I want to see. I like to see the air reservoirs and brake piping.

I can't disagree with you -- I like to take close-up photos too, and details make a difference. But when I started taking photos in N-scale the first thing that struck me was the oversized code 80 rail, not missing brake details. Given that the majority of N-scalers are still using code 80 the extra cost of super-detailed rolling stock doesn't seem worthwhile. (Of course I'm speaking in terms of the hobby as a whole - I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be worthwhile on your layout).

[russtrnmn]

On this flatcar you don't really see the equipment underneath.
100_0023.jpg

But on this boxcar if you zoom in a little you can see some stuff underneath
100_0020.jpg

This is in need of details on top and underneath. That is the stuff I like to add not buy it already done.
100_2631.jpg 100_2630.jpg


Cars that have the fishbelly sides tend not to reveal the underside as much as the straight sides.
I like the topside with a fair amount of detail. The bottom not so much. Just enough to give an impression
something is there. I also like to weather my rollingstock. That is the fun of it.

[69Z28]

I voted "No." I'm in agreement with most of the other posters. If you can't see it why create so much underside detail. Decrease cost by less underside detail.
See ya
Ron

[ColTrain]

I voted no. If I am looking at the underside of a wagon on my layout then something has gone horribly wrong and I am rolling out the rescue equipment.

Who looks at the underside of a motor vehicle before they buy??