Cutting Costs on RTR Models

[Adam1701D]

Following on from Bachmann's announcement of 20% price increases to keep up with rising prices in China, it was mentioned that they were investigating the need for the current level of separate detail on their models. They cited sprung buffers as adding £15.00 to a 4mm steam loco and questioned the need to the complex underframes on N Gauge wagons.

Hornby have recently adopted a similar philosiphy called "Design Clever", replacing separate components with integral mouldings, though there has been some criticism that they went too far with some models.

What's the general feeling amongst N gaugers - do we need the finely detailed underframes that sometimes are totally hidden and some of the ultra fine detail?

Would we be prepared to accept fewer variations of a particular release, for example a steam loco having flush-sided or rivited tenders or a diesel with or without, say, extra headlights or bufferbeam valances.

Back in the 80s and 90s we managed OK with the basic Farish offerings and spent many hours customising models using detailing parts to represent specific prototypes. Perhaps it's time for a return to real modelling...

[EtchedPixels]

The big problem with old Farish was that it was often wrong shape and wrong length with wrong sized wheels. If its the right shape and needs detailing fine by me.

However I think small UK manufacturers may own the future.

Alan

[Ian Morton]

Those who detailed/refined/repainted were always in the minority. Most people just ran whatever it was that Farish/Peco/Minitrix/Lima produced and were grateful.

I suspect that if it came down to an "affordable" generic model of a particular class of loco/type of wagon/coach or a "premium-priced" model of a specific variation at a specific time then even now the majority of purchasers would happily run the generic model straight out of the box.

[Karhedron]

Personally I like detail where it shows. In N gauge this is the sides, roofs and fronts (locos and MUs). Underframes and coach ends are less on display and I think are places where moulded detail rather than separate components would be perfectly acceptable (to me at least).

[Roy L S]

I have waited a long time to see the standards of accuracy and detail that we now see and would be very reluctant to accept any regression. That said I do acknowledge that with the price hikes we have just seen announced I may be in a minority. If with clever design of tooling some items could (say some pipework) form part of the body moulding without too much compromise I could probably accept things like that. I would not want to see regression from separate handrails, see through spoked wheels or brake gear (in line with wheels) but on wagons and coaches underframe detail could maybe be designed more creatively to comprise fewer individual components. I would not want to see say "generic" tenders, but then the issue in question here is labour costs for assembly rather than the tooling so there seems to me no reason why we should have to.

Roy

[Luke Piewalker]

Maybe some kind of modular system of a universal chassis' from offshore with economies of scale with the body and detailing produced locally. 

[PLD]

I have waited a long time to see the standards of accuracy and detail that we now see and would be very reluctant to accept any regression. That said I do acknowledge that with the price hikes we have just seen announced I may be in a minority. If with clever design of tooling some items could (say some pipework) form part of the body moulding without too much compromise I could probably accept things like that. I would not want to see regression from separate handrails, see through spoked wheels or brake gear (in line with wheels) but on wagons and coaches underframe detail could maybe be designed more creatively to comprise fewer individual components. I would not want to see say "generic" tenders, but then the issue in question here is labour costs for assembly rather than the tooling so there seems to me no reason why we should have to.

Roy

You're not alone Roy. 15 years ago there was a chasm in standards between N and 00 ready to run items both in the level of detail and accuracy - last thing we want for the reputation of the scale is for that gap to reopen. Having seen what Farish et al are capable of, I would be very reluctant to see them regress on anything that had a noticable impact on the performance of the stock or was visually noticable at the usual 2ft benchmark viewing distance.

Paul

[keithfre]

Personally I like detail where it shows. In N gauge this is the sides, roofs and fronts (locos and MUs). Underframes and coach ends are less on display and I think are places where moulded detail rather than separate components would be perfectly acceptable (to me at least).

I agree.

[NTrain]

Every individual part needs tooling, not always seperate tooling, as they can be 'sprued' together in a single mould.

Each component on the sprue has to be machined and tested seperately, so the cost of tooling goes up.

Every seperate component, is a seperate procedure to assemble, wether by a human resourse or a machine.

Don't get me wrong, detail is great, but I see no need for it, if the only time you will see it, is with a maginfying glass or you have to hold the thing upside down. Detail, where it can be seen - yes.

[silly moo]

I agree with the detail where it can be seen argument.

I think there has been a tremendous improvement in printing/painting quality so I would hate to see that go.

I would want a loco that runs well, looks good livery wise and has a pack of detail parts that I can add if I want to.

Regards

Veronica.

[silly moo]

Will 3D printing have an impact in the future?

[Roy L S]

Every individual part needs tooling, not always seperate tooling, as they can be 'sprued' together in a single mould.

Each component on the sprue has to be machined and tested seperately, so the cost of tooling goes up.

Every seperate component, is a seperate procedure to assemble, wether by a human resourse or a machine.

Don't get me wrong, detail is great, but I see no need for it, if the only time you will see it, is with a maginfying glass or you have to hold the thing upside down. Detail, where it can be seen - yes.

Hi Bob

You are of course correct but if you can reduce the number of individual components on the spue by including representation of them in a larger component (e.g. Hornby 00 2-Bil has roof vents as part of the roof moulding, Duke of Gloucester - which probably took "Design Clever" too far - has pipe-runs on firebox sides moulded on - on the Brit and Clan these were separate mouldings.

The less parts there are to assemble the quicker and more labour-efficient it will become.

It is a toughie though, because having said all of the above when I look at my latest BR Green Ivatt 2-6-0 received only today, what I see is a simply stunning model and one I wouldn't wish compromised in any significant way. Based on the experience of the three of these I now have they run just as well as they look.

Who would be a model railway manufacturer!!

Roy

Roy

[zwilnik]

Will 3D printing have an impact in the future?

3D printing is great for speeding up the design process as it allows rapid prototyping. It also (as we've seen on the forum) allows very small scale runs of models that it wouldn't be financially viable to do as large scale commercial runs however it becomes very slow and expensive to do a large run of models. For the sort of numbers Bachmann does, injection moulding works out a lot faster and cheaper. Especially for the detail required.

As 3D printing evolves and improves though, this will change. The only issue is that once 3D printing is fast enough, detailed enough and cheap enough to get the edge on large scale injection moulding, it will be cheaper for modellers to have their own printer and just print out whatever models they want.

[BobB]

I think the Union Mills approach should be copied by Farish and Dapol (and any other UK 148th scale RTR modelers, perhaps Arnold's Belle ?)

My problem is that good reliable running from Union Mills is steam outline and not diesel or electric post TOPS models.

If Union Mills can produce reliable and attractive steam then I can see no reason why a U K based manufacturer can not make reasonable representations of 'modern' outline models.

I understand that setting up a company to emulate UM's success is fraught with risk and uncertainty but it gives the opportunity for locally produced good running robust models that give us a chance to add "super" details, becoming modelers rather than vehicle controllers.

If it's as obvious as I think it is, why oh why does Farish, Dapol, Hornby (?) or Heljen(?)  not do it ?

My pet frustration is not meeting advertised availability dates. Whilst I do not follow such things from UM (kettles are not of interest) they don't seem to suffer from that problem.

Maybe we just petition UM to do  diesels as well !

[Thorpe Parva]

My fleet (both steam & diesel) are all either Farish or Dapol. I have avoided UM so far due to the solid wheels & moulded handrails. I will now be reviewing my attitude to UM & will probably be ordering at least a couple of their locos unless Farish announce a G2 in July. I would be happy to pay extra for UM locos if they came with see-through drivers and separate handrails but I guess this may have manufacturing repercussions that make it unlikely.

David