Cost of N Gauge Models in Context

[red_death]

I'm heartened that the debate has moved from purely price to price and value as the two are not the same thing.  Value is a personal judgement based on personal circumstances and whilst it can be interesting to hear what other people value I'm not sure that it helps as it is so subjective and so personal.

Price is in more ways a simpler and more objective discussion.  There are still some fallacies or at least not the whole truth being propagated - my main bug bear is the insistence that detail is pointless (this is an old proxy for "normal viewing distances") and/or that adding detail adds more cost.

On detail is pointless as it can't be seen - that surely depends on the distance that it is viewed from or whether one is viewing images rather than the model.  There is no such thing as a normal viewing distance - it entirely depends on your layout, whether you have a layout or even whether your enjoyment is collecting finely detailed models. A model in my hands is viewed at a much closer distance than the same model on the back of someone's layout - the two situations are not the same and differences in detail are very obvious in your hands.

The myth that detail adds more cost - yes, it can add cost but it doesn't have to.  Take the example of the Seacows or Grainflows - they were tooled at a time when tooling was expensive but assembly was relatively cheap and have lots of individual parts.  Hence with the increase in cost of assembly they become considerably more expensive.  If you were tooling a Seacow or Grainflow now you would almost certainly tool it with fewer parts which does not necessarily equate to less detail - you can include detail provided you are smart about it.  A lot of modern tooling has some exquisite moulded detail.  Even where separate parts are necessary (eg due to tooling limitations) and therefore there is an assembly cost that doesn't necessarily imply that more tools are needed.  For example tooling cost is largely driven by the number of different tools you need and the size of those tools - so tools for OO tend to be slightly more expensive than N, but the number of tools may be the same.  The number of tools is largely determined by the materials being used and any practical limitations of sets of tooling - so a lot of the time I can add say double the individual parts on a sprue for very little cost as long as they are all on one sprue (tooling for 1 part is where the expense is incurred, adding another 10 parts on the same sprue as long it doesn't complicate the tool adds relatively little cost).  So it is far from as simple as more detail = more cost. The converse is also true ie removing complexity and detail doesn't necessarily lead to substantially cheaper prices and why should it given that there are large costs in any new tooling.

Comparing tooling from different times doesn't help you as there are so many variables that you don't know the answers to - the main ones being the pricing policy of the manufacturer and the amortisation of the tooling (ie how many models is the tooling cost split over - that has a massive potential influence on price!). If you have £30,000 of tooling and produce 1000 models then the tooling cost is £30/wagon yet if you produce 3000 wagons then it is £10/wagon - that is tooling alone before unit costs or any level of profit are factored in (all of which pays for the R&D, marketing, back office etc).

To go back to the example of the Farish 37 - Poole Farish shared a chassis between the 37 and 47 which was incorrect for the 37. The Poole 37 doesn't have basic dimensions as being correct let alone shapes! Furthermore Farish introduced a relatively small range at a time with limited choice - that allowed production runs to be larger compared to a more niche model, you are never going to sell as many 89s for example as 37s (and the same is true for many models). Having a smaller range of more popular models allows you to amortise the tooling across more models which helps keep prices low, but then people complain that there isn't a model of X or that such a manufacturer is not introducing new models to the market...

Final point is what can manufacturers do? You only have to look at accounts to see that they are not making massive profits, so if the prices are not generating large profits where can the costs be cut? If reducing detail on new tooling doesn't save you significant amounts then where is the benefit in reducing detail? If smaller ranges that allow you to sell more of a particular model makes N gauge less attractive then the market shrinks. So you have to find a balance somewhere...

Cheers Mike

[njee20]

Don't you be coming in here with your facts and balanced viewpoints Mike! 

[emjaybee]

Well that's a reasoned and well thought through response.

What a kill joy.




[Just kiddin']

[Paddy]

Hi Mike ( @red_death )

You had to go and spoil a good internet flame war! 

So I am happy to play Devil's advocate...

I'm heartened that the debate has moved from purely price to price and value as the two are not the same thing.  Value is a personal judgement based on personal circumstances and whilst it can be interesting to hear what other people value I'm not sure that it helps as it is so subjective and so personal.

Agreed - mmm, that is not a good start, the Devil has agreed with you! 

Price is in more ways a simpler and more objective discussion.  There are still some fallacies or at least not the whole truth being propagated - my main bug bear is the insistence that detail is pointless (this is an old proxy for "normal viewing distances") and/or that adding detail adds more cost.

On detail is pointless as it can't be seen - that surely depends on the distance that it is viewed from or whether one is viewing images rather than the model.  There is no such thing as a normal viewing distance - it entirely depends on your layout, whether you have a layout or even whether your enjoyment is collecting finely detailed models. A model in my hands is viewed at a much closer distance than the same model on the back of someone's layout - the two situations are not the same and differences in detail are very obvious in your hands.

Not sure anyone has said "detail is pointless" in any of the above posts?  It is more about what level of detail an individual is willing to pay for.  I have just completed reading two Cyril J. Freezer books; "Modelling the Steam Age Railway" and "Model Operation in Accordance with Prototype Practice".  In both, Cyril makes this exact point and goes as far as to say that if you want to have lots of detail why on earth do people model in N gauge or even OO!  Not necessarily agreeing with Cyril but it is interesting that these views are held all types within the broader hobby.

The myth that detail adds more cost - yes, it can add cost but it doesn't have to.  Take the example of the Seacows or Grainflows - they were tooled at a time when tooling was expensive but assembly was relatively cheap and have lots of individual parts.  Hence with the increase in cost of assembly they become considerably more expensive.  If you were tooling a Seacow or Grainflow now you would almost certainly tool it with fewer parts which does not necessarily equate to less detail - you can include detail provided you are smart about it.  A lot of modern tooling has some exquisite moulded detail.  Even where separate parts are necessary (eg due to tooling limitations) and therefore there is an assembly cost that doesn't necessarily imply that more tools are needed.  For example tooling cost is largely driven by the number of different tools you need and the size of those tools - so tools for OO tend to be slightly more expensive than N, but the number of tools may be the same.  The number of tools is largely determined by the materials being used and any practical limitations of sets of tooling - so a lot of the time I can add say double the individual parts on a sprue for very little cost as long as they are all on one sprue (tooling for 1 part is where the expense is incurred, adding another 10 parts on the same sprue as long it doesn't complicate the tool adds relatively little cost).  So it is far from as simple as more detail = more cost. The converse is also true ie removing complexity and detail doesn't necessarily lead to substantially cheaper prices and why should it given that there are large costs in any new tooling.

Totally accept that Mike (damn, agreed again  ).  A better statement would be that detail which has to be added by hand increases cost?  Creating a mold which creates a model that is the correct scale size and with appropriate detail costs as much as one that does not.  No doubt as you aware though, if you go down this route too far then you end up like Hornby with "Design Clever".  Bottom line, you can't please everyone.  What I would say though is that anyone creating a model like this must surely have a view on longer term costs (unless it is a one off production run)?  It was obvious even 20 years ago that labour costs in China would rise over the years so designing products with this in mind is common sense.

Comparing tooling from different times doesn't help you as there are so many variables that you don't know the answers to - the main ones being the pricing policy of the manufacturer and the amortisation of the tooling (ie how many models is the tooling cost split over - that has a massive potential influence on price!). If you have £30,000 of tooling and produce 1000 models then the tooling cost is £30/wagon yet if you produce 3000 wagons then it is £10/wagon - that is tooling alone before unit costs or any level of profit are factored in (all of which pays for the R&D, marketing, back office etc).

To go back to the example of the Farish 37 - Poole Farish shared a chassis between the 37 and 47 which was incorrect for the 37. The Poole 37 doesn't have basic dimensions as being correct let alone shapes! Furthermore Farish introduced a relatively small range at a time with limited choice - that allowed production runs to be larger compared to a more niche model, you are never going to sell as many 89s for example as 37s (and the same is true for many models). Having a smaller range of more popular models allows you to amortise the tooling across more models which helps keep prices low, but then people complain that there isn't a model of X or that such a manufacturer is not introducing new models to the market...

Yep, agreed.  For me, I would like to see a sort of half-way house where models are accurate in terms of dimensions and have a good level of molded detail.  This should be coupled with a rock solid chassis (in terms of locos) and fine livery application.  Basically, what Hornby are now calling Railroad Plus.  Hopefully this would provide a range of models which are robust and with less labour content more price stability.  However, I accept that this is not the majority view and despite what I have said, I appreciate the fantastic models that are coming out of Bachmann, Dapol (excluding steam locos), PECO and of course RevolutioN.

Final point is what can manufacturers do? You only have to look at accounts to see that they are not making massive profits, so if the prices are not generating large profits where can the costs be cut? If reducing detail on new tooling doesn't save you significant amounts then where is the benefit in reducing detail? If smaller ranges that allow you to sell more of a particular model makes N gauge less attractive then the market shrinks. So you have to find a balance somewhere...

Not sure there is answer Mike.  If you reduced hand applied detail to lower retail prices significantly would the market grow?  That is the only reason to do it i.e. you sell shed loads more of an item which in turn generates more profit.  Personally, I can't see British N gauge growing significantly whatever the models and/or prices.  The market for toy/model trains is what it is in this country.  Even the OO boys are not making vast sums of money so it is a labour of love.  I take my hat off to you for having a go yourself - it must have been a brave decision to put your own money on the line.

Well, so much for being the Devil! 

Kind regards

Paddy

[emjaybee]

On the subject of detail, I personally think the higher level of detail is good for modelling.

It makes me want to make better models. My first foray into N was 30+ years ago, and I made wagons to suite the RTR stock I had. If I made them the same way, they'd look odd against the modern RTR stuff. Hence why I'm pushed to do things like lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

[dannyboy]

lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

C'mon, that's only 1,500+ per wagon. 

[37214]

And then what about taking that new Farish 37 and fitting sound, for say £130 if you DIY, then sending it to Mercig for a respray and weathering, which adds another £350. You then have a £600 Farish 37. Still just a toy train, but as Nobby absolutely nailed value is purely in the eye of the purchaser, it bears quoting!

...
Maybe to you it's barmy but to him it wasn't. Anyone paying CJM prices would not consider themselves barmy either. It's what they want to spend their money on and no one can argue against it.
...
Exactement, mon ami. To a certain extent the whole discussion is moot. Any hobby is not expensive if it can be afforded. If it can't be afforded to one's satisfaction then don't do it.
Simples.

Some may scrimp and save for one as a super special one off, others may have a whole fleet of so modified locos, whilst others, evidently find it barmy.

The various modelling Facebook groups are full of people moaning about "idiots paying over the odds" for models, usually on eBay, but ultimately it's their money, and theirs alone, if someone wanted to pay £500 for an old Poole model then all power to them! I forget which comedian said it, but it's a bit like driving: anyone going slower than you is a moron, and anyone going faster is a maniac, regardless of your speed!

That's something I won't be doing but if someone wants to do that, as you say, it's their money and I don't have a problem with that.

[emjaybee]

lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

C'mon, that's only 1,500+ per wagon. 

Actually it's more like 1,550 per wagon!

[37214]

The posts today make very interesting reading; from my point of view coming back to N-gauge after 25 years, the price difference is noticeable. Whilst a new DCC Farish 37 is affordable, do I want to pay that amount for what is to my mind, a toy train? Now some will probably howl at that description and insist that it is a detailed miniature replica but at the end of the day, to me, it is a toy. (Preparing for a backlash here, I'm bound to be unpopular now).

Brave, very brave... 

Mind you, we are not RMWeb! 

Kind regards

Paddy

..... or stupid, very stupid     I used to see the same on a diecast model aircraft forum that I used to frequent. Some people would get so animated about a certain model and very aggressive if it didn't match their expectations. I made the mistake of saying that a certain Boeing 737 looked ok to me as a good representation of the real thing especially as it was only a toy. Wow! The outpouring of hate and anger in response, unbelievable. I left them to it.

Anyway, like most hobbies/pastimes/collections, to me, there is no right or wrong, you get out of it what you want or like. I enjoy reading about other layouts or models that people post, they may not always be to my taste or interest but seeing the pleasure that the poster derives from their endeavours is pleasing.

[Newportnobby]

lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

C'mon, that's only 1,500+ per wagon. 

Actually it's more like 1,550 per wagon!

Pssst - I can see your rivets when you do that

[emjaybee]

lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

C'mon, that's only 1,500+ per wagon. 

Actually it's more like 1,550 per wagon!

Pssst - I can see your rivets when you do that

Maybe I should have put a golden rivet on them!

[Railwaygun]

lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

C'mon, that's only 1,500+ per wagon. 

Who is going to volunteer to count them ( and get their Rivet Counter badge??)

[railsquid]

lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

C'mon, that's only 1,500+ per wagon. 

Who is going to volunteer to count them ( and get their Rivet Counter badge??)

Now, that gives me an idea for a mobile phone app, point the camera at any rivet-bearing item and have it count the visible rivets. Bound to be a great hit at exhibitions!

[emjaybee]

lay 6000+ decal rivets on four wagons.

C'mon, that's only 1,500+ per wagon. 

Who is going to volunteer to count them ( and get their Rivet Counter badge??)

Now, that gives me an idea for a mobile phone app, point the camera at any rivet-bearing item and have it count the visible rivets. Bound to be a great hit at exhibitions!

You write it, I'll test it!

[tutenkhamunsleeping]

Now, that gives me an idea for a mobile phone app, point the camera at any rivet-bearing item and have it count the visible rivets. Bound to be a great hit at exhibitions!

Just re-use some OCR software with everything but the full-stops suppressed
(You can tell what a lazy developer I was)