Question for Manufacturers

[rodsup9000]

The world needs more athearn blue boxes!

 When Kadee/Micro Trains first started in N scale (1969 I think), they had kits and RTR and the RTR out sold the kits like 5 to1. So they did away with kits after a few years.


When IM came on the N scale scene, this is what they tried to do with their N scale rolling stock kits and they didn't sell well enough. Back then, all their injection molding was done in Colorado. Then they sent all the kit parts to China to be assembled and started selling RTR rolling stock. And as you know now, almost everything they have, is done in China now. I do know you can call them and get parts if they have them.

 So I think the "Athearn kit" idea won't work today with most wanting RTR equipment. Now with the 3D printing, almost any thing is possible right at home.
 


 

[squirrelhunter]

How many of the Bachmann GP9 and F7 locos have you purchased?
Would you really accept a generic version, or are you at all particular about such road specific details as the style of numberboards, headlights, fan height, grille type, fuel tank size, steam generator, etc?

I think some differentiation is in order here. In HO everyone save Atlas and Kato has gone to a two tier model- high end very limited run locomotives and cars that are totally detailed out for a specific road and legacy tooling that is a one size fits all type.

In N the only companies that do true road specific details are Intermountain and Scale Trains. Eveyone else is one or a few shells fit all. Atlas doesn't do SP light packages, or ATSF air conditioners or CR ATS boxes. Kato picks one proto, does it well and that is it.

I get the days of holding inventory forever are over. But that doesn't mean you need to measure the time between runs of common cars and locomotives in half decade increments.

The i think a better way solution is shorter, but more frequent runs. Instead of 2 or 3 road numbers every 10 years, why not 1 road number every 2 years?

[eja]

When Kadee/Micro Trains first started in N scale (1969 I think), they had kits and RTR and the RTR out sold the kits like 5 to1. So they did away with kits after a few years.
 

I think IM kits didn't sell because they were, IMHO, too difficult to assemble. Beautiful models, but after one cylindrical hopper, I said never more.

 

[dem34]

I think IM kits didn't sell because they were, IMHO, too difficult to assemble. Beautiful models, but after one cylindrical hopper, I said never more.

Even the AAR Boxcars are tough, getting those grabs off the sprue without ruining them is borderline rocket surgery. 

[thomasjmdavis]

Look guys, just remember, we can all have any car or loco we want mass produced.  Prices for a freight car start at $30,000 for the first car and $24 for each additional car from the same tooling.  Add $2000 to $4000 for each paint scheme set up.

On the IM grab irons..... if they had gone with etched grab irons, I would own HUNDREDS of those kits.  I still have some in boxes I have never gotten too because (a) the frustration of trying to get the grabs on and (b) for reasons I cannot explain, the price of kits on eBay is often $5 more than the cost of a similar car RTR.  But I don't think I've bought any IM kits in 10 years.  But I buy the MTL undecs whenever I can- they don't call them kits, but they are "unassembled" so amount to the same thing (and much easier to paint than an assembled undec).

[Point353]

What about the fuel tank/air tanks/battery boxes details, and truck sideframes?  Those could vary depending on the road name of the shell.

Not if it's a "generic" model - which is the topic of this thread.

[Angus Shops]

I know it’s probably not realistic these days, but it would be nice if at least some of the basics were more available. It’s a bit sad to walk into your LHS looking for, 100% truth, a GP9, and not be able to find one of any road name or number. They did have some non dynamic brake with torpedo tubes, but thats too much work. And my LHS is generally very well stocked. I’m a bit old school and don’t really ask too much as I’m willing to detail, paint, and decal a generic model, and I can accept minor detail discrepancies. I don’t expect to see ‘Canadian Pacific GP9 in block lettering’ with all their specific detail in a number I don’t already roster, but to have no GP9’s at all in stock seems odd. And at the rate Atlas produces these things it seems that I might never see them again. Even 40 foot boxcars are getting harder to find. And let’s not even talk about (code 55) track and switches...

On the other hand, my LHS did stock a few Atlas GP9’s in CP script (Master Line) and over last year or so I’ve bought 5 of them. They’ve been repainted (not a full repaint, mostly to lower portion of the long hood only) to CP block, and detailed. So I should be happy enough, but I’d like to do a couple more...

In addition, I don’t understand the volcanic anger some people erupt in when a manufacturer does go to the effort to produce a detailed model that, despite being ‘nearly perfect’, has some minor flaw that is somehow unforgivable. This hobby is supposed to be fun; blazing fury is not fun.

In perfect world manufactures would be able to produce ‘generic GP9’s’ on a fairly regular basis and still produce ‘gold series’ ‘special runs’ on a more limited run basis.

[randgust]

The kicker on a lot of the printed shells isn't quality, I've seen some really good stuff since the resin printers came out.

It's the degree of 'laziness' that's accumulated that the number of people willing to decal and paint is drastically reduced.     You have to admit that its pretty typical now for the majority to complain that whatever they want isn't available in their roadname.    I think it was easier back in the 70's when NOTHING was available in your roadname and you either learned to paint and decal or you didn't model.   It wasn't always perfect, but as skills improved, it was very rewarding.

The other thing that really doesn't help is that the designing theory is still somewhat backwards; the perfect shell is now done from drawings and then it doesn't fit any available mechanism.   It has to be done around a commonly available mechanism, period, or it really can't be done.   This is an old problem, actually, it was probably the undoing of JnJ with the CF7 shell that didn't fit anything and they went under trying to produce a mechanism to fit the shell they had designed.   The other thing is still printing details that are so fragile as to be impractical, or so small as to appear on the rendering but dissapear in printing.    And don't get me started on handrails.   That's why I install wire ones as a service, virtually no one has figured that out unless they invest significant coin in photoetch parts (including me).

Saw the same thing with the MRS1, which was really a sweet printed design and excellent surface and resolution but things like the coupler pockets were drawn to scale, not to accommodate a 1015 box, the box height was off, and surgery had to be done to fit it on either a Kato or Atlas RSC/D chassis.   Rather typical.   Steam in particular does not translate well from an exact scale drawing to an N printed model, stuff has to be designed to fit....something.

Compromises do have to be made.   I have to admire Walter Vail and Showcase for taking the risk on the Nn3 Climax and others, his metal work is without equal, he's prototyped a lot of stuff on Shapeways until it fits, it works, and people have tried it.   And there are a lot of compromises in there if you really study it, and every one of them results in a buildable effort with his or existing parts.

[jjb62556]

For some reason Rapido Trains was not added to road specific companies. If you model the Great White North railroads you can't beat their products!

[ednadolski]

Pretty sure that after 40 or 50 years, including several different attempts by several different manufacturers, you still haven't produced as many N scale GP9s and F7s in aggragate as EMD did.

This is a mistake on your part.

I don't follow exactly how is this a "mistake" on the part of manufacturers?    Isn't it up to each of them to produce the models that suit their business plans, and let the market judge them for what they have made.

Ed

[basementcalling]

Pretty sure that after 40 or 50 years, including several different attempts by several different manufacturers, you still haven't produced as many N scale GP9s and F7s in aggragate as EMD did.

This is a mistake on your part.

Why not go back to the old style manufacturing protocol where you just pooped out a generic version by the million?  Master Line is nice, but that's like taking an Oldsmobile and rebadging it as an Aston Martin.
(I already know the answer, really a rhetorical, or rather philosophical query, but still...)

Grumpy Old Man on a Budget Who Might Not Live Long Enough to See the Next GP9 Produced in Penn Central

Now if you had said GP30s or 35s I'd disagree more vehemently, but seems we were drowning in F units 5 years back or so: Life Like, Intermountain, MT, Kato, & Bachmann have all done them.

Part of the issue I think is new hobby entrants might prefer to run or model what they can see on the rails currently, thus the emphasis on modern engines. Plus I think manufacturers still seem to prefer to offer a new engine over a rerun for fear some people are still happy with what they bought 20-30 years ago.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

It's the degree of 'laziness' that's accumulated that the number of people willing to decal and paint is drastically reduced.     You have to admit that its pretty typical now for the majority to complain that whatever they want isn't available in their roadname.    I think it was easier back in the 70's when NOTHING was available in your roadname and you either learned to paint and decal or you didn't model.   It wasn't always perfect, but as skills improved, it was very rewarding.

Ok, I'm gonna stick my neck out on this here.

I don't think it's that modelers have gotten lazier with their modeling.

I think the availability of a wider variety of stuff has brought more people into the hobby AND has created a situation where expectations for their hobby have grown to the point where some of those other behaviors are less appealing than others.

Because more things are more available these days the scope of modeling has increased. In a world where you HAVE to scratch build everything, you can only replicate a much smaller slice of the world. Because there are more things available out of the box these days it's possible to have much larger layouts. But that, then drives the desire for more RTR stuff.

It's tough to build a 50 car coal train if you have to scratch build, paint and decal each car (although it can be done). It's a lot more feasible if you can just pull up ModelTrainStuff.com and model with your wallet. But now that you don't have to spend that time building the cars, you can turn around and build a layout to run it on with the time you've got. Or spend the time detailing the engines to pull it, or weathering the cars.

It also means that someone who really wants to model a thing CAN without the huge barrier to entry that having to do everything from scratch posed.

And yes, it may mean that the average modeler is less likely or capable of performing "harder" modeling, but it's not because the skills of people have disappeared, it's that the pool of modelers has grown larger.

[ednadolski]

And yes, it may mean that the average modeler is less likely or capable of performing "harder" modeling, but it's not because the skills of people have disappeared, it's that the pool of modelers has grown larger.

In a (somewhat academic) sense that still could be considered an overall dilution of skills.   If 'skilled' modelers leave the hobby over time, and are replaced by 'wallet modelers' (to borrow your term) then yes that would necessarily move the average.

I'm not sure that the pool of modelers has necessarily grown larger.   Isn't model railroading supposedly a hobby in decline?

OTOH what we call 'skills' has also changed substantially.  In addition to the more time-tested things like scratchbuilding and detailing and painting, we now have 3D printing, CAD, DCC programming, sound, updated scenery and weathering techniques, and so on.  (Even the online forum has established itself as a social avenue comparable at some level to the traditional club.)

My only point is that over the long term the hobby is changing along so many different dimensions that it's less clear to talk about what being a 'skilled' modeler means.

Ed

[jdcolombo]

All I know is that I'm a classic example of the "I used to have more time than money; now I have more money than time" meme.  At 65, I do what I most like on the modeling front (sound decoder installations; wiring; computers; track laying) and buy what I don't most like (detailed engines; rolling stock; assembled buildings and almost anything scenic that I can pay someone to do; alas, no one seems to want to hire out for ballasting!).

Some folks really, really, really enjoy detailing an engine to the Nth degree.  For them, a generic model would be a joy.  I'd rather buy an exact duplicate of NKP GP9 521 right off the shelf (Oh!  If only it were so!) and spend my time doing other stuff.

John C.

[randgust]

OK, Ed, I'll bite.   On the ATSF layout one of my goals (dating from 1983) was to do the York Canyon Unit Coal Train just as big as I could make it on the layout.   That ended up being six Alco RSD15's (later I abandoned the idea of dummy mid-train helpers) 35 cars, and a caboose.

The Mehano/MP Alcos were kind of junk, those got rebuilt, repainted, detailed.

Roundhouse had a unit train hopper that certainly resembled the cars although it wasn't exact, and the stock Santa Fe scheme had the wrong herald and lettering color, and the yellow end was wrong for a Ga52.   And lousy wheels with Rapido couplers.   So I did a factory order of 35 undecs, learned to airbrush, had custom decals made, and spent about a year individually decaling up the cars at my office desk at lunchtime.   Everything went to MT's.  The original Trix caboose got replaced by a Centralia Car Shops about 4 years ago.

I could have waited, I'd still be waiting, now over 30 years.   But what I got out of that project was a whole lot more than a train to run, I'd never done anything like that before.   There's a LOT of stuff out now, lot more to work with over the decades, and have even evolved into a very small manufacturer.   I've always had a relatively small layout and never had the dream of a basement-sized empire with thousands of cars where all I had to do was roll them out of the box.   But even as a very small manufacturer, meeting the expectations is daunting when you have only about 50 people that want a particular roadname, feature, version, or detail or won't buy it at all.   That's not an excuse for developing poor models, but it has to be balanced against the economics of production and the simple concept of making a buck doing it or just not doing it at all.   

I'm as likely to pile on as anybody else for relatively dumb things that could have been easily fixed (like copying the HO 44-tonner to make the N one, wide hood, square edged roof and all) but not buying something because it has the wrong headlight - your prototype had a sealed beam?   Or the wrong color stripe somewhere?  Or not in the roadname you want?    The overall quality is just so much better than it was years ago thanks to Atlas, Kato, and even Bachmann that it's just hard to take sympathy with begging manufacturers for a continuously specialized run with a smaller market.  You get to keep waiting.   And one of the really bad impacts of the preorder/one run world is that replacement parts get the worst of it; it you melt a truck, wear out a rod, or loose a crankpin, good luck.

I've also had a ton of fun doing custom builds for others, keeps me from getting bored and also keeps me from the build-it-and-fill-up-the-display-case problem.   And man, do I get some odd builds of stuff that will NEVER be manufactured.