Clark Propst wrote:
Last winter I spent my time constructing a layout instead of my usual building freight car kits. Now, I have many projects demanding my hobby time. I still need to build a bunch of freight cars for proper layout operation.
The other day I counted how many kits I have to build. I was surprised at the ratio of 'quality' plastic kits to resin. About 5 to 1. I thought "Why is that?" My best answer is that there is more motivation and anticipation to see what the completed resin kit will look like. You spend hours fretting over this chunk of light gray stuff waiting to see the detail 'miracle' appear as you spray on the paint. Quite rewarding, each a masterpiece. Plastic kits on the other hand show their hand as soon as you open the box. So I think, why waste a couple hours cussing the assembly of something I already know what it's going to look like. So, If I don't need it for the layout right away it goes back in the drawer, that's no motivation to build it. Even worse, I have a photo of a Santa Fe stock car taken here in town on the CGW. That car could have easily been transferred to my RR and spotted at the packing house we serve. I bought a Westerfield model of that car...it's still in the drawer after two years...at Trainfest in Milwaukee in Nov. I bought a RTR Intermountain ATSF stock car...it's spotted at the packing house cattle pens right now.
So, I say to the group: "Hi, My name is Clark Propst and I bought a RTR model..."
Welcome to the 21st Century where "time is money."
Fortunately certain RTR models for what the manufacturers feel are "generic" (read "marketable") cars have improved in quality over what was produced even five years ago. This has left the "rarer" (read "less marketable") cars to the resin kit or scratch builder. In the middle are caught the kit bashers.
Given this scenario, what can be done to make models of a wider variety of freight cars more "marketable?"