Locomotive production - where does the industry go from here?

[Puddington]

While traditional logic says that prices come down for technology after an initial period this may not be the case for many components of model trains. The normal downward pressure on prices for things like motors is being more than deflected by the upward price pressure being felt in China. Chinese factories can't keep up with demand, capitalization is slowing and wages and costs to produce are on the rise. Frankly; we haven't seen any relief in the Chinese supply chain; quite the opposite; prices are inflating. (Before someone says "bring it back to North America there is still a mile between the cost to produce a model in China vs. "Anywhere", USA or "Nowhere", Canada)

Decoders are another product where the specialization factor makes normal price deflation questionable. More and more new and smaller; more functional decoders are being requested by manufacturers and this is causing both production delays and increased costs from the relatively small number of decoder companies. While not in the same ball park as assembly costs in China, I don't think modellers should expect to see large scale price reductions in OEM decoders any time soon.

While we're on the topic; the largest part of Chinese costs is assembly, not usually raw materials or production. Assembly is labour and as Jason Shron so aptly puts it; "The Chinese worker makes "x" per hour... when the price of lunch goes from "x" to "y" then the wage rate naturally follows because that's how the market was established". With Chinese prices rapidly rising for all sectors of their economy, expect wages to rise. Couple that with increased demand and a stalled capitalization of many sectors of the Chinese economy and you can see that we are not likely to see downward prices any time soon.

[jdcolombo]

While traditional logic says that prices come down for technology after an initial period this may not be the case for many components of model trains. The normal downward pressure on prices for things like motors is being more than deflected by the upward price pressure being felt in China. Chinese factories can't keep up with demand, capitalization is slowing and wages and costs to produce are on the rise. Frankly; we haven't seen any relief in the Chinese supply chain; quite the opposite; prices are inflating. (Before someone says "bring it back to North America there is still a mile between the cost to produce a model in China vs. "Anywhere", USA or "Nowhere", Canada)

How about Mexico?  While I recognize there is another set of problems there, Mexico is part of NAFTA, and it is rapidly becoming the preferred automobile assembly/manufacturing country in North America.  If Nissan, Toyota, GM, Honda, Mercedes, and BMW (to name just some of the automakers with Mexican factories or plans for them) can produce cars there, one has to think model railroad stuff is possible.  Aguascalientes, which is the center of Mexican auto production, has transportation connections by rail to the US, and it's only about 400 miles south of the Texas border.   Plus it's got to be a heck of a lot easier for a US (or Canadian) company to manage production in Mexico than in China, which is half-way around the world and a 14-hour time difference from the US Central Time zone.

I can imagine all the reasons why not (we don't have the capital to build a factory; we don't have the expertise; we don't have . . . ), but there are enough small-ish model companies (not just modelRR) that could profit (literally!) from such a venture.   Would a joint venture among half a dozen model companies be viable?  Has anyone even talked about it?  If not, why not at least discuss it with Paul Graf, et. al.  Maybe it's crazy, but if things aren't going to get better in China, is it any crazier just to hope and pray?  Wouldn't it be less crazy to have a piece of your own production facility at least on the same continent?

John C.

[victor miranda]

Hi peteski,
I can have a conversation about many of the subjects you raise.
please allow that what you have said in response to my posts is not at all
talking about the reasons I made the posts.

consider that I dislike the life-like 0-8-0 because it did not meet known good ways to build it.
where was the industry going with that loco?

Hi Rossford Yard

yeah at some point yesterdays Good locos will become shelf queens.
I agree... but give this next question some consideration as why I tend to ask for a good mechanism,
what yesterday will the kato hudson become a shelf queen?

Right now I can state I think my b-mann heavy 4-8-2 has a place on a shelf...

the industry has not yet sorted out how to make a good steamer.
.... well they have not gone past the steaming yard loaf in a reliable fashion anyway.

I think few here are doing anything except holding their breath
that the new PRR M1 will be a good loco.  we want Good  and we do seem to know what features
are hallmarks, and we can't seem to get the industry on that page...

where does the industry go from here?
can we get to here first?

victor

[jdcolombo]

I have always taken Victor's main point (which I agree with, so I hope I'm right that it is in fact his "main point") to be that unlike diesels, where the split frame, low rolling resistance truck design first pioneered by Kato has become the "de facto" standard design and works incredibly well, there is no "de facto" standard design that "works incredibly well" for steam locos.  I seem to recall Victor making a list of things that makes steamers work well, but maybe I'm hallucinating this.   In my view, good steam loco design begins with electrical pickup.  That means all-wheel pickup on the drivers and all-wheel pickup in the tender, again using the low-resistance, wheels running in bronze cups design of Kato, which in turn transfer electrical current to phosphor-bronze wiper strips in the tender.   This system just works - even with four axles (a/k/a Mikado tender).   So we can start "good steam" locos there.  I also want a four-wire harness running back to the tender, which connects to some sort of standardized plug (I'd vote for a 10-pin micro plug: 2 pins for track power, 2 for motor, 2 for front headlight, 2 for rear headlight, 2 for speaker) so that putting sound in would simply require unplugging the harness and plugging in a sound decoder plus adding a speaker.

After that, though, things get fuzzy.  I want a single steam loco of Mikado size and up to be able to pull at least 30 steam-era freight cars.   My GS-4 and FEF will do so easily; the Mikado didn't until Kato released wheels with traction tires (it still only gets to about 25 before it gives up the ghost, though - not enough weight on the wheels).  Kato's newest "sprung" driver design seems to do a better job at keeping those traction-tired wheels in contact with the rails at all times, making for better pulling power, but weight over the drivers would help, too.  But given environmental regulations (e.g., no lead in the frames anymore) and the prohibitive cost of other options (machined tungsten!), the Kato sprung driver design with traction tires appears to be the best one so far.  Any by the way, my Key brass Berkshire also has sprung drivers and traction tires, and it will pull a ton (the brass shell doesn't hurt, by the way).  I would be OK with proportionately less pulling in smaller steam, but my Bachmann 2-8-0 will do at least 20 cars on level terrain and so will the Bachmann 10-wheeler.  They don't have any sprung drivers, however.  I wonder whether the 2-8-0, using Kato's sprung driver design, would pull even better.

Anyway, what I take from Victor's posts is that we don't yet have a proven "copy-able" steam loco design that "just works" - unlike diesels.   It would be nice to have that design, copied by everyone, for all their steam offerings.

John C.

[peteski]

Decoders are another product where the specialization factor makes normal price deflation questionable. More and more new and smaller; more functional decoders are being requested by manufacturers and this is causing both production delays and increased costs from the relatively small number of decoder companies. While not in the same ball park as assembly costs in China, I don't think modellers should expect to see large scale price reductions in OEM decoders any time soon.

Puddy: this is the 2nd time I see you mention decoders in this context.  First of all, I applaud (at least that what seems) that your company will be contracting well-established decoder manufacturers to do your decoders instead of the half-assed attempts of Bachmann to make a low-end decoder which is really no up to the current standards (both in functionality and component count (and its overall large physical size).  It makes sense to have the expert making this type of electronic subassembly instead of reinventing the decoder from scratch.  Most other model RR companies (even Bachmann with the sound decoders) figured out that this is the best way to go.

But I also think that the decoder price still have some flexibility to go down (especially when purchased in large quantities as OEMs do).  A pretty decent Digitrax DZ126 or DN136  can be bought at a street price of around $17.  These are 2 and 3 function fully-featured decoders (not stripped down versions).  I think that there is even more flexibility in a price of sound decoders. The price ration to the hardware cost on those is even much greater than non-sound decoders.  I suspect that the actual cost of the average sound decoder's hardware is probably less than $40.  Yet, the still sell for $100 or more. I understand that there is intellectual property cost, but that could probably be negotiable when dealing with large quantity OEM orders. The decoders are manufactured by automatic assembly equipment (no Chinese workers soldering tiny components by hand). So that part is inexpensive. Soldering wires is done by hand but most well-designed OEM decoders are PC boards only - no interconnecting wires. Mind you - my experience is strictly in electronic hardware. I have no insight to the industry.  To me it seems that the price of decoders could come down a bit in factory-installed ones.

Victor: I guess I again misunderstood your post (nothing new ere). To me it often seems that you talk in riddles. I still don't quite understand as to why the FEF is not a contender in your opinion for a best made steam loco and for something other manufacturers should emulate.

JC:
Diesel loco mechanism design can easily be standardized (chassis with 2 pivoting trucks). The overall size of diesels is also similar for most of the locos. Except for small diesels which have their own set of problems (where on of the biggest is their low mass - something not easily remedied).  Kato's U30C design drastically changed the N scale diesel mechanism design over 20 years ago and those design features are still used on most new models. U30C is not a shelf queen (because if its excellent mechanical qualities) and will probably never be a shelf-queen. Neither will be other locos which have their mechanisms mimic that Kato design.

Unlike diesel locos which all have the same basic mechanism, steam locos aren't all alike. There is a huge variety of physical sizes (which also includes their weight) and wheel arrangements. There might not be a one-size-fits-all perfect mechanical design.  I think that FEF-3 is as close to perfect design (for that type of size loco) as we can get.  It has a low-friction bearings on all the wheels (or as low as the wheel arrangement allows) and majority of the wheels also serve as electric pickups. That specific design probably cannot be equally applied to all the other types of steam locos, but the same basic idea of having 4-wheel-suspension (or in case of FEF-3 the equalized pair of drive axles serves a single suspension point) and having good part of the loco's weight over the traction-tire driver (with all the other wheels pretty much cosmetic) is probably the best we will see in N scale for a long time.  To me that design is clever, logical, and makes sense.

This type of design can be utilized on other steam locos. But I wouldn't expect a small (and lighter) 0-8-0 or 2-8-2 loco using the FEF-3-type mechanism to perform as well as their larger counterpart.  But I think that mechanically Kato has arrived with a winning design.  Perfect? Probably not - but pretty close.

[Puddington]

But I also think that the decoder price still have some flexibility to go down (especially when purchased in large quantities as OEMs do).  A pretty decent Digitrax DZ126 or DN136  can be bought at a street price of around $17.  These are 2 and 3 function fully-featured decoders (not stripped down versions).  I think that there is even more flexibility in a price of sound decoders. The price ration to the hardware cost on those is even much greater than non-sound decoders.  I suspect that the actual cost of the average sound decoder's hardware is probably less than $40.  Yet, the still sell for $100 or more. I understand that there is intellectual property cost, but that could probably be negotiable when dealing with large quantity OEM orders. The decoders are manufactured by automatic assembly equipment (no Chinese workers soldering tiny components by hand). So that part is inexpensive. Soldering wires is done by hand but most well-designed OEM decoders are PC boards only - no interconnecting wires. Mind you - my experience is strictly in electronic hardware. I have no insight to the industry.  To me it seems that the price of decoders could come down a bit in factory-installed ones.

Couple of things; most people don't know that when OEM's buy decoders there is a two stage cost; the decoder itself and the programming time for a new locomotive.... Second; yes; installing plug and play decoders is fast but these new smeller switchers are challenging the space and installation speed of existing factories. Third: Not all smaller locomotives can use plug in decoders (at least not that are available yet) so hard wiring is a reality in some cases and is a cost. Fourth: "Large Quantities"... When Sony makes a new TV they order 100,000's of a part; when an N scale (or HO mfg) mfg orders decoders we're talking a few thousand, maybe as high as 8-10 for really, really popular models. The economy of scale isn't even close so the prices for decoders are not a low as many people would think. Fifth: These decoder company's are smaller than many model companies so their ability to handle new products and orders is stretched just like us; delays  to a decoder can cause huge, huge issues for a model train company as capital is tied up and in limbo if your decoders are all of the sudden a few months behind.

I'm not complaining; it's just the reality of the industry today.

[BCR751]

What the hell's wrong with getting stuff made in the US or Canada?  This is a legitimate question and I'm not looking for any smart-a$$ answers.  Giving business to other countries that have shady governments, crappy (or nonexistent) human rights laws, top the list for smuggling drugs and outright murder doesn't seem quite right to me.  Surely quality model products can be manufactured in countries that are on the same continent and speak English and get along reasonably well.  I just don't understand the need to go elsewhere to have this stuff made when it can be done right here.  So, enlighten me and be civil about it.

Doug

[peteski]

What the hell's wrong with getting stuff made in the US or Canada?  This is a legitimate question and I'm not looking for any smart-a$$ answers.  Giving business to other countries that have shady governments, crappy (or nonexistent) human rights laws, top the list for smuggling drugs and outright murder doesn't seem quite right to me.  Surely quality model products can be manufactured in countries that are on the same continent and speak English and get along reasonably well.  I just don't understand the need to go elsewhere to have this stuff made when it can be done right here.  So, enlighten me and be civil about it.

Doug

From what I understand, if this was to be, your new mass-produced plastic locomotive would probably cost you $400 (not $80 you currently paying).  Would you buy as many models for those prices as you buy now?

[Puddington]

What the hell's wrong with getting stuff made in the US or Canada?  This is a legitimate question and I'm not looking for any smart-a$$ answers.  Giving business to other countries that have shady governments, crappy (or nonexistent) human rights laws, top the list for smuggling drugs and outright murder doesn't seem quite right to me.  Surely quality model products can be manufactured in countries that are on the same continent and speak English and get along reasonably well.  I just don't understand the need to go elsewhere to have this stuff made when it can be done right here.  So, enlighten me and be civil about it.

Doug

Labour cost; benefit costs; taxes; indirect costs, and many other line items; all hundred's of percent higher in North America. The offsets in freight, time to market and reduction in error due to communication do not even begin to come close to making it possible.

[BCR751]

I think it's interesting that not every manufacturer sends their business to China.  There a few very good ones here in north America that seem to be doing well and they don't charge astronomical prices for their stuff.  How are they doing it?

Just when did China become the go-to country for the manufacture of almost everything?  If they can make stuff so much more cheaply than it can be made here, why do prices for the things they make there continue to rise?  The price of models that were previously made here or in Europe didn't suddenly drop when the production was shifted to China.  Why not?  Because the sale prices stayed the same, all other costs went down and guess where the difference went?   

China is rapidly catching up with north America when it comes to cost of living and quality of life.  The closer they get to the north American model, the less attractive is going to be to have stuff manufactured there.  Factor in the shipping costs, wait times and capital investment and it becomes even less attractive.  I'm sure there are people employed by businesses whose job it is to travel the world and identify countries that have no labor laws, no human rights laws, no environmental laws to be ready to shift production there when China becomes non-competitive.  Those manufacturers that are trying to get it done here will be well positioned to grab a large share of the model market when that happens.  And, rest assured, it will.

Doug

[up1950s]

MLW RS-23 , and MLW S-13 , and ALCo S-6 are so close and covers Canada and the USA . Some louver changes on some models , but nothing that couldn't be adapted with innie screens , outie louvers , and flush plugs all of the same size . That would cover 90 percent of the units sold .

[victor miranda]

Hi peteski,

I have been told I speak in riddles before.

I am not sure how much is obvious and when I am belaboring the point
or being pedantic or tedious.
I tend to the short side of saying things

To be clear of riddles...
cone and axle point pickups are the only way to do electrical pick-up in n-scale.
I can hear the but-ums now. while things like wipers and inside wipers
and metal inside bearings can do the job, what all those have in common
is that they require more power to operate and fail to maintain contact
during fairly ordinary track shortcomings like joints and frogs.
the thing that make this so frustrating is that what is so clearly better
is not ordinary. Wipers are not substantially cheaper.
the parts count is the same. The materials for a reasonable wiper are expensive metals
and most cone and axle point systems use brass for the cone part which is a less expensive material.

ok that is a lot to write when one wants to say; use cone and axle points for pickup,
they are very effective.  thus I tend to riddle.

In the FEF, Kato made inside bearing pickups for the last four wheels.
given all the other challenges involved I can understand that decision
and the method they use is pretty good and I seriously doubt any one else will follow that method. (effectively)

There is one other thing about the industry, in this regard of pickups,
only Kato shows any understanding that a miniature HO loco lacks effective pickups
the b-mann 44 tonner and the recent u25c are small HO locos.

If the 44 tonner was made with cone and axle points, I am pretty sure
it would have far fewer pickup issues. as the uboat gets older it will display similar problems
the model power pacific is a miniature HO loco.

b-mann does copy things and they show some signs that they do not understand why the design works.
the 44 tonner is an example.

I have a Hudson chassis from long ago that still runs well.
I have cleaned and oiled it once or twice (the top was used as a baby's teething ring...)
con-cor copied the sleds into the 2-10-2... they clearly didn't know what made them work well
or they would have NEVER have use such short and stiff contacts on the tops. (end of an example)

Ain't none of this hard to figure out. As one fellow I admire said (a paraphrase )
"The engineers at the factory seem to think they know a better way. "

Clearly, they don't.

In n-scale locomotives, electrical pick-up is _THE_ technical problem.
If you get this part right... you can compensate for a lot of other problems.
B-mann recent steam is in this area.

Another aspect is that n-scale locos will never weigh enough get reliable pickup,
so it MUST get pick-up from what ever is on the rail.

When I state the 44 tonner often has only three wheels doing pick-up...
that means two on one side and just ONE on the other side.
is it hard to accept that the 'ONE' in a plastic frog causes a stall?
what are the other three on that same side doing?  'cause it sure ain't pick-up.
after all, the loco stalled....

Kato has made 4 us steam models.
right now I think all four are pretty good performers.
of them, I think the gs-4 has the most problems... and pickup is not one of them.
the FEF, I am still evaluating, I do like it.

I'd be a happy camper is Kato would make a few ordinary US steam models
my opinion is that the kato mikado is still the loco to use to compare and copy.
it is reasonably reliable and well made. I think b-mann's connie can be tuned-up
to be better and that the gs-4 does not best the mikado.

In a lot of ways the three in comparison is splitting a lot of hair.

fun ain't it?

victor

[peteski]

I agree with your evaluation of what is the best electric pickup system (and the added benefit is a very low friction).  That is great for diesels with outside bearing trucks and for tender pickups in steam locos, but that still leaves a whole bunch of wheels on the loco where that system cannot be utilized.  So the next best type of a pickup for the loco's drivers, and leading and trailing trucks with inside bearings (on certain locos) is through the metal axles and bearings.  If that is the case, this cannot be improved any further than Kato (and many others) have done on the locos themselves.

Bachmann is strange. For example in their Acela set they used cone and axle point pickup on all the dummy cars (for electric pickup for lighting) but on the power car the powered trucks use inside bearings and crappy pickup plates behind the wheels (even though the trucks themselves are supposed to be outside bearing (identical to all the other trucks on the dummy cars)!  Who thought that scheme up?

But even the outside bearing trucks are not all that good on Acela - the axles are way too loose in the bearing cups.  It took some serious modifications to make them run better. I even went as far as converting he powered trucks to outside bearings (not a trivial procedure). But I still can't figure out why Bachmann engineers did what they did on that model.  I don't hold too much hope for Bachmann to start making models of Kato's quality or execution.

Kato Mikado was a very good locomotive (design-wise), but it wasn't perfect from the start (the wheel design was modified for better pickup and traction tire was added).  But with close tolerances and good quality workmanship, it was always a good model.   I think that GS-4 was a giant evolutionary step in steam locos (which was taken even further on FEF-3).  Kato engineers had a difficult task of having a single steam loco pull the entire SP Daylight set (even on grades) and they succeeded.

In the end I think that you're right - those design engineers think they can do things better without thinking things through as far as how their designs will really behave in after being produced.  But Kato's engineers do seem to have a better grip on reality and be more skilled in coming up with good solutions to their problems. They aren't perfect, but usually closer to perfection than other engineers.

I also wonder if most of the models designed and made in China for the various U.S. companies (as opposed to Japanese-engineered Kato models) are all designed by the same small group of engineers.  I say that because some of the same poor designs are present in many different brands of Chinese-made models.  Or maybe it is the schooling or mentality of all the Chinese engines?  A cultural thing?

[Rossford Yard]

Peteski,

I have no way of knowing, but my guess is that Mr. Kato truly loved trains and it shows in his product making, albeit second generation. I would think the same is true of Irv Athearn, and others, much more so than a toy subcontractor in China who is doing it just as a job and doesn't understand as well as we do just how much minor improvements in running make in our enjoyment of our hobby.  I'm not saying its a big difference, maybe 1% in quality and design, but in some cases, that is enough to make a difference, and steam may be one of those cases.

[rrjim1]

Another new loco from Arnold, boy that was fast!