An exploration of the meaning of innovation.

[PAL_Houston]

We have had discussions in our corporate context about the meaning of the term "innovation", as well as how to identify and promote it.  Despite extensive discussion among a sizable group of pretty smart people, and so-called "innovation consultants", I still struggle with an adequate definition. 

We have observed, however, that if a person or group was not previously aware of an idea or technology, then they are much more likely to consider it "innovative".    With that concept in mind, stimulating "innovation" can mean just the dissemination of knowledge from one group to new groups, in such a way as to enable the new group to improve their situation.

With that in mind, I think we all probably recognize computerization, and electronic miniaturization, as significant innovations that have occurred during our lifetimes, in the same sense that aviation and jet aircraft were significant innovations of our parents' generation.  These innovations have in turn enabled other innovations, so for instance, we now have smart phones, and in fact, "Dick Tracy" watches we can wear for computing and communication.

Innovation in my mind, then, is a bit distinct from "evolutionary change".  In the context of model railroading, I think the (recent?) innovations are:

1. DCC.  The adaptation of computers and communication to enhance model railroad operation.  Evolution of the mechanical hardware (e.g. DCC-ready frame design) are then more evolutionary.

2. Advanced materials.  These materials include plastics and magnetic materials especially, that enable more finely rendered models, and also more advanced, efficient, and more compact motors.

3. Rapid prototyping.  Again computers have enabled not only effficient 3-D design, but pretty direct translation of digital designs to hard goods.  3-D printing is a combination of this and those advanced materials just mentioned.

[Rich_S]

Paul, 

Websters defines innovation as: the act or process of introducing new ideas, devices, or methods

So from my perspective, even though the automobile tire has existed since Henry Ford started production on the Model T, when the radial tire was introduced it was a innovation. But to play devils advocate, since you are indicating innovation is something new, is DCC really new? Before DCC we had CTC-16 then CTC-32. Plastic was invented in 1907, so is a new form of plastic a innovation?

Remember guys this is just a friendly debate, not an attack on anyone.  In my opinion, I believe what MTL did with their current N scale locomotive is a innovation, why? They took an idea one step beyond what Rail Power Products did in the early 1980's. Not only did MTL produce a new body shell, they decorated it, attached it to a power chassis, fitted it with their brand of couplers and worked with a DCC manufacture to create a Plug-n-Play DCC option for that existing power chassis. In my opinion this is a new method. Now if another manufacture uses the same process, I would not consider it to be a innovation as MTL just completed this process.

Just my two cents and your mileage may vary 

[brokemoto]

In terms of innovation, there is nothing earth shattering out there. Manufacturers beginning to use coreless motors is probably the best thing happening right now IMO. Bachmann seems to be leading the charge in this aspect, what their excellent running Alco S4 and their NW2. It is a shame that their shells and other features are not up to par with the operational aspect of those engines.

I do not have that big a problem with their shells.  To be sure, there are better out there, but the B-mann shells do get the job done (Although, in a moment of honesty after  expressing similar thoughts, what that Soviet Admiral said about good enough's being the real enemy of excellence keeps returning to mind).

I do agree with you on some of the construction methods.  Flexing wires soldered to pivotting trucks was a hallmark of N scale diseasel construction from the 1990s and before.  Even before that, better manufacturers were going to the split frame construction.  Probably the last decent runner that any manufacturer built with the flexing wires/pivotting trucks. for any length of time was the plastic frame LL FA-2.  Funny thing, though, LL found a way around split frame construction when it issued its E-units and PAs.  It used the contact strips but soldered wires to them and the motor.  As the wires did not flex, since the strips to which they were soldered were stationary, there was no concern about their coming unsoldered any time quickly.  On the other hand, one of the reasons that I do not run the old plastic frame LL BL-2s or FAs is that I got tired of re-soldering wires to the trucks.

Now Bachpersonn has brought back this construction method for its NW-2 and S-4,  These are excellent runners and pretty good pullers, given their small size.  Still, it will be sad to have to stop running them when a wire comes off its truck.  I suspect that B-mann did this to keep down the cost of isolating the motor for DCC use. 

This, also, is a likely explanation for the reappearance of wires between tender and locomotive in the steam department.  The RRs were innovative in that they used a stiff wire in the drawbar to eliminate the unsightly wires from tender to locomotive.  Kato took it another step by making all wheels in the tender live and a live drawbar that kept away the wires.  The wires are now back, as they keep down the cost of keeping the motor isolated. 

[loyalton]

We have had discussions in our corporate context about the meaning of the term "innovation", as well as how to identify and promote it. 

"Promote" is key in several senses of the word. An old innovation in HO was Lindsay using 7-pole skewed armature motors (!) when motor cogging was common. Lindsay also had sprung trucks early on. No manufacturer followed suit (for whatever reason) but apparently Lindsay never publicized these improvements, either. A friend opined that unless a manufacturer hit people over their heads publicizing their improvements, end users would not consider the innovations useful or just remained unaware.

[strummer]

I was just about to comment but Lee kind of beat me to it.

Most of us who lived through the dark ages of N-scale clearly see the innovations brought over the years as our scale has evolved from the table-pounding days to what we have available now. Watching a locomotive crawl along at a snail's pace were things we could only dream about back then.

I recently acquired a couple of Athearn's Southern Pacific bay window cabeese(?) and was pleasantly blown away by the detail compared to the memory of my old Atlas model of a similar caboose.

All I can say is keep up the good work Kato, Atlas, Athearn, Micro-Trains and all the other model makers out there. I like where this scale is going.

+1

To say nothing of the advances in track,control options and buildings...a very cool scale all around.

Mark in Oregon

[Alaska Railroader]

To put it mildly this discussion has made me feel a tad uncomfortable so I must comment. Why? Underneath our Stonebridge Models logo are the words "innovative laser designs". In which camp does this put me, the right or the wrong?

As Rich said "Websters defines innovation as: the act or process of introducing new ideas, devices, or methods". This.

New ideas - Besides the obvious brand spanking new ideas what about the upgrading an old idea, especially if it makes significant improvements to the older idea?
Devices - There have been several jigs invented for our hobby in both N and Z that were never needed before, just to name one type of device. Tools being another.
Methods - Did model railroaders weather their rolling stock 50 years ago? So this would be a method that was added at some point. Certainly no one could run their trains with their cell phones 10 years ago. Another new method. 

Each of the above categories could be greatly expanded depending upon how many of you guys can get into a room with a big enough white board   

In my case, early on I introduced a completely new way to make a kit by folding it from one piece. My greenhouse was a perfect example. You take it out of the package and it is slightly scored and a bit pre-bent. So is the acetate that goes inside, all six sides of the "glass" are one piece.

Then came along David K Smith. He helped me to see that I could push the envelope with my laser beyond what the laser manufacturer thought possible (proof, they had me send samples to Corporate). If David needed lasered parts smaller than the head of a pin I worked on it until it happened. Those tiny targets on his switch machines? They weren't stamped out, they were lasered, even the Z versions.

I am very comfortable with our slogan, not in a prideful way but in a way to distinguish us.

The area I know the least about in this hobby is what this thread has been primarily about; hood width, rail height, wheel wipers, etc.

Without innovations we would still be playing solely with our pre-war Lionel sets. But companies like MTL can only afford so many innovations in order to keep a product affordable to us. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't do it.

Maybe that was a little more than 2 cents worth of thinking but I am ready for correction. This subject has made for some very interesting dialog.

[up1950s]

Historic Oak Hill Inn , Natchez, Mississippi gets a innovation from tripadviser .

There have been many innovations in our hobby lately .

The O scale UP 4-12-2 articulation , better to have it than to not if your scale is O and your curves a bit tight .

The ability of MTL to do realistic enough weathering/patching/graffiti is an innovative way to better the looks of our trains . I didn't think they would be as good as they have gotten .

3D printing , an innovation that is still on the teat , but taps the masses who have the skills , money , and desire to bring something to market that would never happen or be a long shot .

[Hyperion]

-FVM: Free-standing grabs/dimple system.   Love it.  Definitely an innovation.

Agreed.  But a bigger innovation (as far as I know they were the first) was their use of standard decoder sockets in N-scale that could be accessed without removing the whole shell.  Simply pop off the radiator grill and plug it in.  Made decoder installs a 30-second job and made the near-requisite offering of a "factory-installed-DCC" option totally moot.  Along with giving the customers choice of the little details or not they also gave the customers ultimate choice in DCC while also making the install literally as simple as it could possibly be.

[peteski]

Agreed.  But a bigger innovation (as far as I know they were the first) was their use of standard decoder sockets in N-scale that could be accessed without removing the whole shell.  Simply pop off the radiator grill and plug it in.  Made decoder installs a 30-second job and made the near-requisite offering of a "factory-installed-DCC" option totally moot.  Along with giving the customers choice of the little details or not they also gave the customers ultimate choice in DCC while also making the install literally as simple as it could possibly be.

But is it an innovation even of this DCC socket has been used in many European models for over a decade (probably close to 2 decades).  Even the old Minitrix Selectrix (another digital train control system) used these sockets.

Maybe as an innovation for an American manufacturer?

[victor miranda]

yah know I do care that the correct people get credit for inventing something.
In this thread I guess it will come up.

I was really exploring the meaning of innovation and not so much the inventions themselves
except maybe as examples.


as soon as a disconnect was invented...
There have been many innovations related to size and materials and methods of manufacture.

so far as denver road doug's claim to be the one who said
there was nothing innovative in the mts sw1500, I sure can't find that post.
The post is gone as far as I can tell.

in my mind I think innovation is good, desireabe, and on the small side of invention.
An innovation on a traction tire would be more concentric or better grip on the rails
or both of those and more durable.

Since I was... well, puzzled as to the intent of the sentence I spent
some time considering the possibilities.

I realized that I could think up some inventions and innovations
that were not considered as good things when all the considerations were considered.

certainly discussions over merits requires knowing about the innovation.
as an example... FVM dimples?

keep in mind that many locos that are considered good locos
have no real improvement or innovation over previous locos.

when I got 'maybe' as an answer to a request, in my family,
that answer meant 'no.' 

I am coming to see 'new feature' as you WILL pay more.
all that follows is quite open to evaluation over is that an improvement.

coreless motors are good examples of that.

[ednadolski]

I work in hi-tech and there are plenty of great ideas that get thrown around all the time and at all levels.  At the end of the day, what matters is not how much people talk about something or what they call it, but whether they go out and actually get something done.

One corollary: you can "innovate" all you want, but unless and until someone is willing to buy it, you haven't accomplished much.

Ed

[Denver Road Doug]

so far as denver road doug's claim to be the one who said there was nothing innovative in the mts sw1500, I sure can't find that post.

Victor, here is the comment:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=32252.msg380326#msg380326

I did not stake claim to that because I wanted to be the cool kid in class.  I simply thought that perhaps you disagreed with me and I did not want to dodge a statement I made.   Honestly, I don't really have that much to say about it, and the complete dissection of the term innovative is pretty over-the-top when you consider the context in which it was used.  I think most people got the gist of what I was trying to say though.

[victor miranda]

please read my post in context.... and 'claim' may not be the best word to use.
I went looking, I could not find the post...,  three times I have read that post in your link.

It was not what I remember reading.
(I may well not have an accurate memory on the matter...)

believe me, I have a lot of things to say on a lot of subjects and I mostly don't
because I have been told I like useless arguing. 
That is an opinion, I am not sure I agree.

So If you think I am skirting something please consider; it ain't my style.

now take this as a compliment.
I read your post.  I thought about it.

up until I thought about it, (or what ever my imagination made up...)
I thought "innovation is a good thing."
Now I think innovation does require consideration.

Welcome to a better understanding of the possible meanings of innovative.
It sure was an eye opener for me.

victor

[Rossford Yard]

Could be mis remembering, but I think it was actually Life Like that first came out with near scale size handrails on locos.  Their SD7-9 locos were a big step up from Kato/Atlas at that time.

Will agree that smooth running Kato locos about 1989 is still the biggest innovation in N ever - without those locos, N would never have taken off, including moving me off the beam from HO to N.

We often talk of an mfg selecting models that use their previous frame, parts, etc. to offer another model at reasonable cost (i.e., Atlas GP 38 and 40, SD 35 and 24/26) but this is an example of a company using someone else's frame to save design/production costs.  And, assure that they knew what performance would be like (which would not be assured at all with any new design)

Not sure that is innovative, since IM used Atlas to do the same thing with the tunnel motors, but it is a creative way to get a long desired model to the market more easily.  So, you could say, while not innovative, perhaps a necessary move for what they wanted to accomplish for us N scalers.

I have to believe that Atlas wasn't sharing their MP15 mech, since it could very well have had long term plans for the SW1500 itself, so LL and MT were a match of convenience.  I also have to believe that developing a new mech for a limited amount of models (i.e. switchers) really had to be cost prohibitive for a company not 100% committed to the loco market, although some would say that FVM proves that wrong.

Please note, most of the above is speculation, and of course, there is nothing innovative about that on these forums......

[bbussey]

In the context of model railroading, isn't innovation simply the introduction of new methods/procedures/designs that help evolve the hobby?  There have been countless innovations in the industry over the decades.  Some are significant milestones that violently (for lack of a better word) altered the trajectory of N scale and stand out across the years.  Atlas snap track in the 1960s.  Kadee couplers in 1972.  The Atlas RS-3 in 1983.  But there are thousands more innovations that have shaped the current N scale landscape.  If something moves the needle in a positive direction, it's innovative.