Technology

[Puddington]

Several threads have been started where members are debating the "level of technology" being used in some new releases. While I have no knowledge of the design process of these company's I can tell you that the type of drive system, electrical pick up system,  decoder and other critical parts of the "guts" of a locomotive is driven as much by design and desire as it is by cost and availability.

It's easy to look at a company and say "why not use a coreless motor", "why not use a "xxx" decoder", etc... The issue is availability of some parts. There are very few high quality motor makers and thus a N scale sized and spec's coreless motor isn't a shelf item. Some suppliers are tied to particular Chinese factories. It could be a delay of 12-18 months to get a company ready to produce one; get on an existing supplier's wait list or to actually develop one that will fit and work at an acceptable level. By that time your capital is tied up in tooling that is sitting dormant... remember; we're talking 10's of thousands of dollars for tooling a locomotive and most company's are really small firms where that kind of cash matters.

Decoders are still a developmental items, especially dual mode and sound decoders in N scale. Waiting for, say a 21 pin design for a particular decoder could costs you 6 - 8 months; that means a year to market..... Do you go with a hardwired model? Do you wait...?

When we look at new locomotives you need to balance your viewpoint between wanting specific features and getting our products to market in a reasonable timeframe. We've all seen the hue and cry when a product get's delayed and sometimes the only way to mitigate that is to use existing technology or forgo a new development in order to bring it in on time and on MSRP.

Just thought I drop that out there.

[mark dance]

Excellent post Mike.  Very risky decisions.  And the smaller the manufacturer the riskier they are.

In the past I was in partnerships with a couple of very large, very old, German companies who refused to put any technology without 10+ years of *field* experience into their products. 

And one of the reasons that new energy technology is so difficult to finance is the potentially multi-decade "valley of death" required to prove new components and systems work before you can take the risk on them.

I know we are in a hobby and not energy but for a small company the risks in adopting new technology or changing supply chains can be similar.

md

[jdcolombo]

I've never been a fan of new technology just for the sake of something new.  There's nothing wrong with using perfected design techniques.  For example, the split-frame and low-friction truck designs perfected by Kato years ago work superbly.  Unless someone magically comes up with something that works even better (I don't know how - unless someone comes up with a magical alloy that conducts electricity through dirty track so that we never have to clean track again!), there's no reason to deviate from this proven design.  I don't know if the coreless motor used by Kato in the FEF is an "advance" or not.  All I care about is how the thing runs, and honestly the GS-4 and the Mikado ran just fine with conventional iron-core motors.  I'm sure Kato had a reason for going this route, but that reason is invisible to me, the end consumer.

But in some cases, moving the hobby forward with improvements that ARE visible to the end consumer requires new technology - or at least new engineering.   Moving to a "drop-in" DCC decoder design required reworking the split frame and coming up with the idea of an analog circuit board that could easily be replaced with a DCC board (it's still not really "drop-in", but at least you don't have to do soldering).  FVM's move to an analog board with a six-pin connector is an advance on this design, making it even easier to convert to DCC (and I don't know why this hasn't been adopted by everyone - there is certainly enough room in even first-generation hood diesels for this).  SOMEBODY had to take this first step; and while I understand fully the angst involved in the timing of production and tie-up of capital, there are usually both short-term and long-term benefits to being the first on the block with a true advance that is observable to the potential purchaser.

I understand why Atlas' S-2 has been delayed so long.  It was all about (1) engineering a sound option and then (2) taking that engineering into production.   It took ESU far longer than estimated to design and produce the sound-decoder board that will be used in the S-2.  You not only have to design the board, but you have to design one that people in factories can actually install in the production process.  But Atlas (and Rapido Trains, with the GMD-1; though it seems to me that the GMD-1 came to market quicker than the S-2) will benefit from that investment in future releases; there may not be a ton of people who will pay the $200 price tag for a sound-equipped unit, but there will be some significant subset of the hobby that will, and that subset will grow larger over time.  I would be extremely surprised if the next new-tooling Atlas, Rapido or Intermountain locomotive did not include a sound option.  And one day we'll look up and it will be the same for FVM, Athearn and every other locomotive manufacturer.  And then in 10 years, I suspect EVERY locomotive, diesel or steam, will come with a dual-mode sound decoder installed, because it will just be easier to manufacture that way, the technology and engineering will be "down pat" and it will become like the split-frame and low-friction trucks pioneered by Kato.

I think most (well, many) of us understand that these kinds of advances take time and courage.  I try to reward manufacturers who do these kinds of things by buying their products, even if I don't strictly need them.  I DO need the S-2, and have two undecs on order that I'll paint for the NKP, and then buy more when Atlas inevitably does the NKP scheme down the road.  I don't know what I'll do with the undec GMD-1 I've ordered; probably paint it in some form a grunge and make it a switcher at my steel mill, and hope no one wonders what it's doing there in 1957  .  I have an FVM Hiawatha set that occasionally shows up "lost" on the NKP; a Big Boy, a Challenger, an N&W Y (from Walthers), a GS-4, an EM-1, and now an FEF.  Why?  Well, OK - I DO like big steam, but it's also because I think that when a company makes this kind of investment and has the courage to "do it right," those of us that can do so should support those companies with purchases.  So I try to do my part, when I can, and I expect the manufacturers to do THEIR part, when they can.  Do your best under the constraints you have.  That's all anyone can ever ask for.

John C. 

[Puddington]

The design process for products is also a factor here. Once again, I can't speak for other company's but right now I'm working on preliminary aspects of projects we won't even announce for 16-18 months and won't see in the market for four years. It's very hard to see "exact details" of sizes, shapes, wattages etc... before you even have a CAD drawing so you can't "jump the line" and have everything in order years ahead... pity!

Because many company's are small; the use of capital is one of the greatest keys to timing. A state of the art HO scale locomotive can cost up to $ 100,000.00 to develop and tool; maybe $ 50 - 70 for an N scale version. That money is completely spent before the first model is sold...... so you have to time that capital outlay carefully. (Not every company is created equal; we all know some have deeper pockets but the vast majority of us are small firms)

In many cases, the "logistics" of figuring out what components from sub contractors are available at the right time, are right for your model and are within your budget is a "free flowing" issue. If you can't get into the line at say "xxx" time then your motor supplier will be unable to deliver until "yyy"; which puts your moulding shop in a tough spot because they are committed to another project and/or customer. The interaction between these sub contractors, your ability to leverage the needed capital at the right time, exchange rates (hey; right now the Canadian peso is at 0.84/USD... anybody think Canadian suppliers saw that (because of the price of oil) happening a year ago when we were planning our 2015 deliveries?) and constant price increases from Chinese factories because of lack of capacity all come into play when deciding "just what will this model end up being and when will it arrive"....

So; take choosing a motor for example; coreless motors have a wonderful future in our hobby but the number of quality suppliers available right now can be counted on a single hand without using your thumb. So; you have a new model you want to bring out in say the 3rd quarter of 2015; do you wait for capacity at one of these guys - delay until 2nd quarter 2016; start a factory and make them; absorbing the capital cost, time and risk; unknown delay to project; do you look to another country; add in another unknown supplier and logistics issues (a big gamble) or do you go with 3/5 pole standards and delivery around the targeted time? There isn't one right answer; it's a complex question of the mfg. The same can be said for decoders, speakers and other components.

I'm glad to see modellers pushing for advancements that improve the products but by the same token I think it's important to understand that when a company uses proven, existing technology for a model there is most likely more behind the decision than either a lack of will to change or a lack of knowledge; it's usually far more complicated than that.

[bbussey]

Mike, well said.

[nstars]

Mike, well spoken. I do also agree with John as new technology is not a necessity. If I like an engine and can use it on our layout I'll buy the engine.

Marc

[pnolan48]

Thanks for the discussion, Mike.

[peteski]

Looks like this might have something to do with my "old-school" design comment. 

Mike, I have a question about your "dual-mode decoders" comment:  Why do you say that those are still in a developmental stage?  While I haven't been into DCC since the inception, dual-mode decoders seem to be a standard for all the decoders I have ever encountered since I got into DCC (in the late 90s).  AFAIK, all the small mobile decoders from Digitrax, TCS, NCE, QSI, Soundtraxx, and some others I can't think of are capable of running in DC and DCC.  That is pretty much a standard feature.

John: the 6-pin NEM decoder socket has been used by many European manufacturers fro decades and nowadays it seems to be a standard feature.  I guess when space is not a problem the only things that I couls thing woudl be against using it would be the extra cost of the socket plus the dummy DC board usually installed at the factory and possibly the need for more function outputs on most U.S. prototype locos (like strobes and ditch lights).  European locos usually do not need those extra lights.

I'm also not into changing things just for the sake of change, but it would not be a good thing if a new model took take an evolutionary step backwards.

[nkalanaga]

In our interconnected world currency exchange rates are a big factor for any company, unless they do all of their work, source all of their materials, and sell all of their products in a single country.  Of the major North American manufacturers, I suspect that KD and MT come the closest, and even there the cost of plastic depends on oil prices.

Another factor is that, even if a company can insulate themselves from the international economy, their customers probably can't.  My current employer makes auto parts.  The incoming materials come from Europe, North America, and China.  The resulting parts go to factories in the US, Mexico, and Canada, and dealers/parts stores around the world.  If the auto market tanks, I may have less, or no, income, so can't BUY your product, even if you keep the price the same. 

Model railroaders have noticed that effect for years, as European and Japanese models varied in price with exchange rates, and there really isn't any way to change it, short of destroying the entire economic system and starting over from scratch.  Even then there's no guarantee that the new system, whatever it is, won't be worse.

[basementcalling]

I'm also not into changing things just for the sake of change, but it would not be a good thing if a new model took take an evolutionary step backwards.

+1. Remains to be seen if the new U25Cs from Arnold indeed did this with plastic components in the drive train.

Mike, I can agree with all your points and still say that none of that matters to the average model railroad consumer. If it's not on the shelf, for whatever reason, they can't buy it. Simple as that. Most consumers are not patient with their disposable income, and if what they plan to buy isn't there, and a comparable product is, they will go with the available item over the vaporware.  That has to factor into the manufacturer's decision making matrix and I am gad you opened the box on how companies weigh such decisions.

Kato hit a homerum with the FEF for many of the reasons you highlight. Not that we will ever get to know how they planned it out, or if the timing was just sheer luck, but bringing out a new loco with pent up demand for UP modelers, and appeal to other segments of the hobbiverse, using new technology to improve performance, and doing so in time for the holiday shopping season has to have been a boost to the bottom line.

[Puddington]

My recent work with the widest range of dual mode decoders has resulted in my new found opinion that "all are not equal"... which isn't to be critical of any particular supplier rather that the use of the dual mode decoder adds yet another layer of randomness to speed matching for DC  modellers. Starting voltage, top end etc... all come into play with the use of the dual mode decoder and we've seen a range of performance and response - that's all.

[Puddington]

+1. Remains to be seen if the new U25Cs from Arnold indeed did this with plastic components in the drive train.

Mike, I can agree with all your points and still say that none of that matters to the average model railroad consumer. If it's not on the shelf, for whatever reason, they can't buy it. Simple as that. Most consumers are not patient with their disposable income, and if what they plan to buy isn't there, and a comparable product is, they will go with the available item over the vaporware. 

I understand that; in fact it's kind of the reason I mention some of these facts. Look back through the pages of many threads on TRW and you will see a range of responses to delays and missed anticipated deliveries on a huge range of products. The responses range from complete understanding to out and out rage and venom being spouted at the supplier. There are have been instances where a very few vocal people on the "interweb" have caused damage to model railway suppliers by taking aggressive, public attacks at them for delays to deliveries (in one case someone even went as far as to publicly and without a shread of fact claim that a company was filing for bankruptcy protection) without understanding and, frankly not caring about the root cause. It's often the same people who are just as negative when a product fails to meet their specific needs.... tough crowd...

Consumers have the right to react however they want; that said; a group of consumers like many model railroaders who are "concerned with the small details" of a model's fidelity should be willing to ay at least a small amount of the same attention to detail to the overall condition of the industry that supplies them with their products, and the workings of that industry. I like an informed customer; makes conversations a heck of a lot easier. That is why TRW is such a valuable forum; most of the guys here are dialled in to a greater degree and have the willingness to listen and understand.... doesn't make waiting for your beloved "filling the blanks here" any more fun but it does make it easier..... (like my single window heavyweight coach...LOL)

[peteski]

My recent work with the widest range of dual mode decoders has resulted in my new found opinion that "all are not equal"... which isn't to be critical of any particular supplier rather that the use of the dual mode decoder adds yet another layer of randomness to speed matching for DC  modellers. Starting voltage, top end etc... all come into play with the use of the dual mode decoder and we've seen a range of performance and response - that's all.

Except for a certain manufacturer (whose name starts with B and ends with an N) and their very basic in-house made decoder which does not have many tunable parameters, most other decoders behave reasonably well in DC, and are tunable as far as min and max speeds go (in DC).

Besides, why worry so much about speed matching?  And to what? Since the inception of N scale (and still occurring) is the speed mismatch between models from different manufacturers (or even between different models from the same manufacturer).  we all learned to live with that and even expect it. 


EDIT: to Puddy's last comment: I rather wait for years to have a model well made than have one released on-time but rushed out with inferior design or flawed execution.  I'm still willing to buy the Rapido's Turbo Train in N scale (if it ever reaches the market). 

[Puddington]

Except for a certain manufacturer (whose name starts with B and ends with an N) and their very basic in-house made decoder which does not have many tunable parameters, most other decoders behave reasonably well in DC, and are tunable as far as min and max speeds go (in DC).

Besides, why worry so much about speed matching?  And to what? Since the inception of N scale (and still occurring) is the speed mismatch between models from different manufacturers (or even between different models from the same manufacturer).  we all learned to live with that and even expect it. 

Well; I was shooting for something a little better..... silly N scale guy.....

N scale Turbo...... now talk about a development project.......welcome to my world.   

[CBQ Fan]

You get into trouble comparing Kato to any other company, outside say Bachmann, because they control all their own production.  It Is not apples to apples.