"Standard" wheels for Micro-Trains?

[JoeD]

May have mistated.  We would own the tooling if we contracted with them.  Going soup to nuts is an option we have explored and one of our releases before I got here was done in China with mixed results.  Granted, they have come a long way, but we still like our printing and decorating better.  I really want to keep our production here.  We provide good living wages to 80 folks and their families and going overseas will erode some of that.  My challenge is to strike a balance and do what I can go get the most value for the product produced.  We are looking at alternatives, the formost is keeping things proper height above the rails and seperate details as financially possible. Proper height doesn't cost anything and a key point I got on Railwire.  I get a ton of great feed back here, that's why I keep haunting a sight that specializes in East Coast modeling...even if it goes against grain of my west coast bias.  )

Joe

[Mark5]

I've heard Atlas owns their tooling as well. This certainly has to be the case for the stuff that was originally done with Kato, as they continue to release it.

Looking forward to sampling the new wheels!

Mark

[wm3798]

Joe,
I think it would be worth a look to consider splitting the MT lines into the old tooling/collectibles stuff, and a premium line of high end detailed stuff.  Sort of a Trainman/Master approach like Atlas.  It seems to be working over there.

Consider the possibilities...
A Micro Trains Classic line wherein you ship the older, more dated tooling and production overseas to make up the volume sales.  Focus on runner packs of popular road names and a steady stream of things like hoppers and boxcars.  Continue the collectible series like the Navy Ships, Presidents, Barbie and Ken, or whatever the hell else you have up your sleeve in this line (maybe decorate the collectibles state-side).

Then, gear up your in-country staff to compete nose to nose with ESM, BLMA, Intermountain and Bluford on premium SCALE models with all the trimmings.  Do the short runs for lower volume/higher value, and really focus like a laser beam on GETTING IT RIGHT the first time...  

The key will be to make the standard line still fit the bill as the "Cadillac"... okay, Cadirrac, of N Scale, so the premium line can be positioned as the Rolls Royce...  You keep your people in Oregon fed, the high volume stuff produced overseas provides cashflow to cover your domestic operations, and your premium stuff becomes both highly desirable by collectors and runners alike.  Afterall, the Micro Trains name in and of itself will carry weight with many modelers of both stripes.  (I can't help but wonder if the "limited run" concept doesn't help prop up the new manufacturers who really don't have a solid repertoire yet...  Get 'em while they're hot, and still in business!)

When all this works out for you, and you take all the credit, I'll expect at least a couple of free samples! ;D

Lee

[Mark5]

Please no more Cadillac references, back in the 70s and 80s Cadillac was a joke! Anyone remember the V8-6-4 engine? Cimarron anyone?

(Cadillac did finally start to improve in the 90s)

I'm not sure the Trainman allusion works here. For example, the PS 40' boxcar, would simply tooling up a new frame "cure" the ride height? These boxcars are still good models, certainly not akin to the Trainman PS 40'.

Mark

[Ed Kapuscinski]

But remember trainman ISN'T just the old junk. It's also newer stuff that Atlas has done but "cheaped out on" in some way (that doesn't matter to 80% of their customers). Take a look at the new 50' boxcars (you know, the $7 ones).

I think a plan like that has real merit.

And think of it this way. Not only do 80 people keep their incomes, but a bunch more get paid more too (and maybe we'll stop bitching, no doubt inproving Joe's quality of life!).

In the absence of that plan, I think Joe's got the right idea. These new wheels seem like real winners. THAT is the MTL that made its name.

[JoeD]

I like the plan and we have approached SDK about doing something like this.  It's possible to do and manage, we just need to make sure we have the downlines to support the cost.

Initially there was some resistance to doing some upgrade kits I proposed...brass frets with extras and replacements for each of the cars that warrented such things.  Correctly managers felt pointing out warts never helps Marketing, but things have changed and we see that some of our older tooling could use a little face lift.  We have a few older models being reworked now, part of that is looking at ways to get them to ride lower in the process.  The new wheels help a lot...those flanges don't get in the way and I don't have to worry about clearing out the underframes (more tooling costs)  In some cases its just a matter of shortening the insert for the bolster to lower the car as long as we have room on the ends for the draft gear box.  I'm also looking at making that thinner so we can loose a few thousands on the height without altering the end details.   Closer coupling is another issue, but I think we will always be bound by the smallest commercially available radius.  Some decisions are made for you I guess.

Joe
MTL

[Mark5]

Closer coupling is another issue, but I think we will always be bound by the smallest commercially available radius.  Some decisions are made for you I guess.

Joe
MTL

So we need to start a movement to ban 9 3/4" radius eh?

Mark

[JoeD]

I think Bryan might like that too  ;D

[bbussey]

There is a 9¾ radius curve in N scale?? 

[wm3798]

12" is reasonable.

Glad to hear the pump is running in the MT Think Tank!  Just make sure you clean the filter...

Lee

[Denver Road Doug]

Closer coupling is another issue, but I think we will always be bound by the smallest commercially available radius.  Some decisions are made for you I guess.

Wow, you had me until here.  Designing for the lowest common denominator track radius (and an outdated one at that) has to be the most absurd thing any current high-end model railroad manufacturer could do.  I can see it back when there was no Z-scale...people would push the envelope to make the tinyest, gimicky n-scale layout possible.  But last I checked Z-scale is what....thirtysomething now?

Are you really gonna lose ANY of your market by bumping your minimum up to, say, 11"?   13"?   I have 12" radius cuves on my layout and would PROUDLY buy cars designed for 13" radius if all the other improvements you mentioned were done.  Quite honestly, I've run SD70MAC's and body mount couplers on 11" Unitrack without incident.  Not sure why an 11" standard couldn't really make 99.99999% of the population happy.

I just think you guys are in no-man's land.  I model 2000-ish BNSF/UP and I haven't felt the need to buy an MTL car in about 5 years.  I have reached and purchased a couple, just to support a company I consider a still important part of the hobby, (and of course I buy lots of trucks/couplers) but it's kinda mind boggling how little even interests me...not even talking price.  I'm price conscious...I will pay for quality...but most of your cars aren't unit train cars and would be onesy-twosy purchases anyway.  So if the per unit price is a little higher I'm good with that.  But when your covered hoppers are just not up to snuff, boxcars aren't a real buying priority, sitting on TTX stuff (until recently), sitting on Ortners, tank cars, et al, and then marketing errors like mismatched-era container/flats, etc......it's hard to be a customer!

[bbussey]

I jest above, but I agree in general with Doug's statement.  The industry doesn't move "forward" unless manufacturers take the point on pushing things forward.  Look at what has occurred just in the last decade:

* Atlas introduced better track with North American scale tie spacing
* with MTL introducing the new wheels, all domestic manufacturers now have smaller flanges as standard issue
* Atlas started body-mounted couplers on motive power, regardless of the wheelbase
* BLMA and ESM introduced correct ride height as a standard
* ESM introduced models that did not adhere to the 9¾ rule
* IMRC and ESM introduced integrated body-mounted couplers on all equipment as a standard

There are plenty of models that will run on 9¾ radius.  There is no reason that high-end models need to do that, especially at the expense of prototypical detail, ride height and operation.  

If any ESM model operates on 9¾ radius, it will be due to coincidence as opposed to design.  The XIH does, barely.  But the G26 doesn't, the next two ESM models won't either, and I'm okay with that.

[Sokramiketes]

How can it be incorrect when that's our experience?  Done much contracting with them?  Mold design is one thing, hard tooling transfer is a different animal.

Joe

Personally contracted with SDK?  No.   Worked for companies that do?  Yes.  Ones that shipped off tooling and mold bases so SDK could run parts? Yes. 

Even been purse shopping with SDK engineers in the suburbs of Detroit, but that's another story.   

Did they simply tell you "no we don't do that" or was there a fundamental design issue between your tooling and their machines?

[JoeD]

Again missing the point to the market at large.  The 9 3/4 radius may seem outdated and outmoted to those of us uber-modelers here, but the vast majority of modelers aren't the Bryan's or Skibbies or other super achiever types on this board who have the room and dedication to go bigger with their radius. Most of us are the exception than the rule.  Like Z, most are casual table top types that run when what little free time and space is made available.  I get more requests for a radius smaller than 195mm in z than anything else these days.  I suspect Atlas and others still produce the 9 3/4 for a reason...they sell.  We are splitting hairs I suspect, we still need to get closer and that's one of my goals.  But we can't ignore facts, just have to work around them.  I've even gotten a few emails requesting converting Bryan's gon to our truck mounted coupers so they make it around smaller radius.  Haven't quite figured that one out yet!

I also agree that high end models don't have to run on 9 3/4, but that market is very small frankly.  A few guys in an office with off shore mfg can pull it off, a company like ours would have a difficult time with the ROI in this market.  I'm all for pushing the envelope and thinking outside the box, it's what I do best, but I still have to operating in the realities of our market, which is different than ESM, and others who are creating new niche's.  Still, closer coupling is achieveable and just takes a bit of a seed change here and more capitol, and it's coming.    
Joe

[Blazeman]

This thread has evolved quite spectacularly. A reasonable, intelligent discussion without any emotion. And to have the manufacturer of the product in question participate and indicate he takes into account what the members (aka customers) are wanting is very encouraging for the future of this scale.

Joe: as for this being a predominately eastern group, look at it as a balance to the primarily PNW-based magazines.