RCH, though the experience may seem trivial, it is a baby step, and it builds confidence in the modeler. You think that the craftsman won't fade away? You are truly blinded.
Slow down, Bob. Are you trying to say the concept of the railroad model craftsman (with apologies to the magazine) is dead or is exclusive to your generation? Who do you think made this hobby over 100 years ago? Who cut the molds for the Globe F7 or the Athearn PS2CD 4740 covered hopper kit? Who designs the cottage-industry resin kits of today? There is no need to ring the alarm bells here. Craftsmen will endure, just as they did long before the first carriage was pulled along a railway. And a funny thing about craftsmen, they have a way of building what they want without kits or instructions.
I'm not suggesting that every craftsman starts with a body of knowledge and experience. But the very basic skills required to assemble an Athearn or Accurail or MDC kit can be picked up anywhere, from the garage to the workbench. If turning a screw inspires confidence in building models, I think it's a false sense of confidence for anyone over ten years old. That tiny skill set is what is built upon to become a craftsman. The blue box kits were called "shake the box" kits for a reason. There's not much to them. Mastering the assembly of blue box kits is not a prerequisite for craftsmanship, although it very well can occur along the way.
Sure go out and buy a Tichy, a P2K, or an Intermountain. I can buy 2,3,or 4 BB for what you are spending. And with a bit of detail work make them looks as good, if not better than your more expensive cars. And accomplish the result in the same amount of time, if not faster, and at less expense. The proof is in the pudding.
You mentioned your fleet of 2000-2500 cars earlier. Frankly, I think it's difficult for you to argue quality vs. quantity with me. That's an average of 40 to 50 cars per year. Unless you do model railroading full time, I don't believe you attempt a level of detailing or quality that approaches what I do.
For my personal pursuit of this hobby, building models of locomotives, rolling stock and vehicles forms the majority of my time spent at the workbench. I have many blue box cars in my collection and I think they are fantastic starting points for many different prototypes. I generally do plenty of detail work on them to get them to a level comparable to some of today's models, including those offered under the Genesis banner. The tooling is and always was from the beginning very crisp and uniform. Once the cast-on stirrups, grabs, roofwalks, brake details, etc. are removed, the opportunity to make a very nice model is there. But to suggest a "bit of detail work" gets you a model comparable to a Tichy flatcar is uniformed at best.
And just how much detail can one see in a car that is traveling around a layout? I venture to say not much, especially when weathering covers up much of the detail anyway. Detail becomes a second look when observing a well weathered car, don't you think?
I can't pretend to know the answer. I'm not interested in cars traveling around layouts. I think they're more interesting to look at when they are being "loaded" or "unloaded," i.e., parked or being switched at an industry. I agree that the individual details will disappear into a well-executed scene, but there are many details that, when accepted as good enough, break the illusion that you're looking at the real thing instead of a plastic toy.
When The BB line came out, all we had were wood, metal, and a combination of the two. Actually, the sides roofs, ect still had to be assembled and glued together. And many had to be painted as the wood was raw and unpainted. When the BB came out it was a blessing. No more glue marks. No more split basswood sides. Been there, done all of that. You're point is well met, but off the mark by a long shot. And the kits you've mentioned are child's play when compare to assembling a brass model. Been there done that, too. The items you mentioned could not be attempted if the modeler had not gained confidence to attempt the challenge by honing skills on less intrepid and intimidating models. I'm sure your first cars were not any of the ones whose manufacturer you have named.
I can't help but take offense to being condescended to in this way from you. You couldn't possibly know my background unless I have told you. I've built the types of kits you mention, including scratchbuilding with brass and making repairs to brass steam locomotives. I have built Walthers passenger car kits (the brass sides/wooden core kits), Gloor Craft wood kits, plenty of cardstock models and dozens of other rolling stock and structure kits, all of which came long before my time. You see, I was very fortunate to have a Grandfather who collected model railroad kits through the 1950s, 60s and 70s but never found time to build all of them. It was through his gifts of these models to me that I was able to experience many of the kits that came before I was born. In other words, I have an appreciation for what came before the blue box because I, too, have built it.
As far as my first kit is concerned, unless I mentioned Front Range in a previous post, then you are correct. My first railroad kit was a Front Range ACF covered hopper car. I actually received two of those along with a Tichy wheel car kit and a Tichy crane kit for my 14th birthday. I have to admit, it was at least a year before I attempted the crane kit. Now, I had constructed several 1:25 and 1:43 scale tractor trailer trucks by that point, along with a few aircraft models. I doubt I have any of them anymore, nor do I have that Front Range hopper, but I'm quite certain they were poorly done. It was part of the experience of learning to build a kit, which in some small way, I will acknowledge the Athearn blue box can be.
Now, to your point re: blue box vs. craftsman kits that came before them, I have stated as much in my previous posts. I believe we are in agreement here on some things, but for your generation, the blue box kits marked a departure from craftsmanship. You state here that you looked at the little effort it took to get a blue box model on the rails as a blessing. You yourself had the skills necessary to shake blue box kits together from your previous work on "craftsman" kits. In other words, the blue box kits were not your introduction to craftsmanship, they were an escape from it or they were a foundation upon which you could apply your craftsmanship.
And by the way, this feeling of relief you describe is what a younger generation seeks when they buy RTR over blue box kits. At the very least, they are already assembled, but the RTR cars are more than that. The paint quality, metal wheels, often correct paint schemes, knuckle couplers, etc., are the kinds of time saving elements that swayed you toward the blue boxes years ago. Just as then, today the experience of craftsmanship exists apart from the venerable blue box kits. It can be known to anyone who attempts to craft something of their own, be it a small detail part or an entire locomotive.
Where we are in disagreement here it seems is that the termination of the blue box line is an indication of the death of craftsmanship. The death of the blue box was as inevitable as the death of the wood core/brass side passenger car. It's just the passage of time, friend. But the craftsmen who make these models their own, who cut molds for new kits, who craft everything from tools to toys, will endure. To suggest otherwise is incredibly cynical.
At least it did not go to some place like Somalia for cheaper labour. Then the issue would be spending $$$ to 'bribe' the local pirates to 'allow' product safe passage out. Saving $$$ on labour costs can mean spending it elsewhere in some cases---
