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...
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
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.
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 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
Maybe some kind of modular system of a universal chassis' from offshore with economies of scale with the body and detailing produced locally. :hmmm:
Quote from: Roy L S on May 02, 2014, 05:10:18 PM
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
Quote from: Karhedron on May 02, 2014, 03:57:56 PM
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.
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.
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.
Will 3D printing have an impact in the future?
Quote from: NTrain on May 02, 2014, 05:40:04 PM
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
Quote from: silly moo on May 02, 2014, 05:53:21 PM
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.
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 !
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
What about wagons and coaches? UM don't do them.
This is just another version of do we just play trains, are we railway modellers or are we rivet counters? I'm all for the UM approach and will add whatever detail I want; as others have said detail which is not easily seen is superfluous - except to a rivet counter.
The days of the basic 6 wheel Farish chassis - "one size fits all" - is definitely not somewhere we need return to however I think we have gone too far in the opposite direction which has pushed costs way up.
I would imagine quite a few of the cottage industry fraternity have fallen by the wayside, not so easy to find detailing parts these days, vac pipes, lamp irons, Westinghouse pumps and similar items. :veryangry:
Quote from: captainelectra on May 02, 2014, 02:27:52 PM
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?
Isn't the idea that things are totally hidden or only visible if you hold the wagon upside a bit of a myth - underframes can be very visible depending on: the prototype and what height/angle you view something at (ie if your layout is at waist level then it may be valid, but if at or near eye level then the underframe becomes much more visible).
Where the manufacturers could make savings is changing the design from several individual pieces which need fitting separately to thinking more creatively about to mould more pieces as one part.
Quote from: captainelectra on May 02, 2014, 02:27:52 PM
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.
I would provided the shape and detail were correct for the particular releases. What I wouldn't like to see is locos decorated with liveries or numbers that were incorrect for that variation, though I accept that may make me a minority.
I've no problem with people having to do some modelling!
I think we have been incredibly lucky over the last 5-10 years with a glut (at times too much!) of well detailed and performing stock at very reasonable prices. I've noticed that I'm much more careful about what I buy now than I was 5 years ago - a combination of rising prices, the fact I have far too much stock which I will never use for a layout and being squeezed on other areas of living costs.
It was only a matter of time before the Chinese workers wanted more pay - you can only chase cheap labour for so long.
Cheers, Mike
No point having detail just because they can, especially with a coupler the size of a pallet load of bricks at either end. Do the details that matter, are sensible and economic to produce and are visible. Maybe make the detail parts (typically found in the bag) an "accessory part" to buy separately - so long as they take the price off the basic product.
Take the time to verify the design to avoid expensive problems later.
Stop doing red lights on the rear of diesel locos - only applicable light engine. cost saving?
Test everything out of the factory and send the duds back - why pay for them to fixed over here?
Packing - bulk packs of items that run in long rakes? - MGR wagons of instance.
3D printing...
Will not replace anything mainstream until the talent void has been filled and knowing today's game system jockeys I don't see how that's going to happen. We did the 92 and had it resin moulded - still plenty left as (IMHO) there are not the "modeller's" to make them. Lots want them - only a few can actually finish and paint them.
Prices gone up by 20% - thats 20% fewer sales or spend the £'s with other cheaper manufacturers! At least it was a bold honest step - they could have done it gradually over a few years.
Respect to all.
Russ
I feel a bit in the middle here! I have both steam and diesel locos, mostly Farish, but I have one U. M. loco, a J29 which is, I.M.O. a lovely little model. Not as detailed as my Farish ones (the Midland Pullman is a beaut) but it pulls a scale length train and to me that is the important thing and the reason I stuck with N gauge when I moved house and had the chance to go back to OO. 18ft gives a lovely appearance of a railway in the countryside in N but becomes too cramped for a main line look in OO.
My problem comes from needing to use a U.M. 0-6-0 on heavy mineral traffic and the Farish 8f on short pick-up goods! Perhaps I could afford a U.M. 7f
Quote from: BobB on May 02, 2014, 06:04:50 PM
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 !
I fundamentally disagree. Union Mills has it's place as a niche supplier of basic but robust models no mainstream manufacturer would ever be likely to do but to champion them as some kind of model for what the future of British N should look like takes us back years. Akin to a return to the Farish models of not so long ago that I for one am very glad to have left behind.
It has to be said that in recent years we have been spoiled by cheap models (in relative terms) of ever increasing quality. Fifteen years ago list price of a UK made Farish A4 was £89.95, no separate fittings, no see through wheels, brake gear DCC socket. coreless motor etc and yet today we have the Ivatt 2-6-0 with all of those things listing at £104.95. In a comparative sense allowing for inflation over that period that is very cheap and will remain so even at £120.
The prospect of UK manufacturing returning any time soon is slight, even with the recent price hike and doubtless more to follow the cost differential will remain enormous. Therefore I suspect the future will be for the general principle of highly detailed models remaining the norm but with choices of simpler prototypes, cleverer production techniques and some compromises on separately fitted details mitigating cost and price increases.
Roy
I think detail where it can be seen is important (although with my eyes I need a close up photo to see it!). Detail that is hidden from view is of little interest to me whether it is on locos/carriages or wagons.
I'd much rather prices stayed lower rather than adding detail which I'm never going to see.
just thinking of the mk.1 carriages, we now get the cover plates for the corridor connections, and the air pipes for both end, which you can't fit if you have couplers.
how much do these parts cost to produce, pack in their little plastic bag, and have someone cellotape the bag to the insert tray ?
and what percentage go straight into the spares box / bin because they are not applicable because they were not fitted, or because they can't be fitted because the carriage is in a rake which need couplers and so can't have the pipes fitted ?
so a nice thought, but IMHO totally overkill to supply both end for every carriage.
I'd have thought a better idea would have been to do as Dapol do with their loco details, and sell a separate pack with snow ploughs, screw couplings etc.
if you want them, you pay for what you want to buy, if you don't you are not paying for plastic and labour for something that's going in the bin.
just my thoughts :hmmm:
I think N gauge loco manufacturers need to get reliability and quality control right before adding detail that you cant see once the train is in motion.
Lack of detail doesn't seem to worry those that buy Union Mills and they know that their loco is going to give them many years of trouble free running,
Nothing worse that buying a brand new loco and finding its a dud or wont pass through the points without stalling, forget the super detail and lets get QC and reliability right first.
Quote from: RussellH on May 02, 2014, 07:47:35 PM
Test everything out of the factory and send the duds back - why pay for them to fixed over here?
That would actually cost a lot more. I remember Dave Jones estimated once that the cost in man hours to test run each loco would add something like £15 to the cost.
It is cheaper for them to order slightly bigger runs and simply replace the duds in the UK.
Quote from: Karhedron on May 02, 2014, 09:49:04 PM
I remember Dave Jones estimated once that the cost in man hours to test run each loco would add something like £15 to the cost.
But that is exactly what he has promised to personally do with his new DJM range... :hmmm:
I this why peco stuff is still a good price. I read on the forum everywhere that is not acurate but a generic chassis and same for the body with the print changed to represent the livery or owner and the dapol or farish equivalent is better be tailed etc
I'm happy with peco and having never seen anything in person I can't compare it( does this make me lucky )
Bart
And Bart it continues to sell.
Kind regards
Geoff
Genuine question: does this debate happen in any other country? It seems to be a very British thing, that "crappier but cheaper" = "better".
Jim
I like the fact that the quality of models is very good now, the shapes are generally very accurate, and in most cases accurate enough for me not to know if it's "wrong". They all pretty much really look like what they're supposed to be. That said, I wouldn't bemoan the demise of the "bits bag" too much, although I'd still like the option of the scale bogies on steam engines.
One thought did cross my mind that might reduce cost. Could the manufacturer make an engine in a particular livery and then supply a sheet with all or a selection of numbers of that particular class in that particular livery for the modeler to select and add themselves. This, rather than a production run with a number. then another production run with another number, etc. Just a thought. I'd probably buy more of a model in one go if that were the case, rather than wait for another numbered version to be produced.
Take the Dapol A4s. Some are produced in BR Green Early Crest, some in BR Green Late Crest. From what I can tell it's the same green, the only difference is the crest on the tender. Why not produce the engine in BR Green, numbered, and provide a Green tender without crest and let us choose which one to put on? I'd have bought more A4s by now if they did that......
In a slightly similar way I made a suggestion to Oxford diecast.
I said as they were producing the Lodekka they might consider supplying comprehensive sets of self applied fleet-names and advertisements with each model. This would allow you to customise it to your layouts geographical location. They were to be seen the length and breadth of the Country in either Tilling Red or Green, only less so in Scotland. I did not get a reply.
On reflection I think there is a sizeable number of collectors out there who put models into cabinets for display, and as such the transfer option if implemented would likely result in a loss of sales.
Modelmaster produce fleet-names and bus ad's. However, the last time I looked at their website it talked of semi retirement and a huge number of items not being re-printed once stocks have been sold.
Quote from: ScottyStitch on May 05, 2014, 05:34:42 PMOne thought did cross my mind that might reduce cost. Could the manufacturer make an engine in a particular livery and then supply a sheet with all or a selection of numbers of that particular class in that particular livery for the modeler to select and add themselves.
Heljan tried that in 00 and they were very poor sellers, frequently ending up in the bargain bins of the box shifters. I can understand your reasoning but it seems in practice that the vast majority of modellers want to buy a fully finished model.
I think that a lot of people aren't confident enough or don't consider themselves skilled enough to apply transfers and numbers to locos, especially in N.
Quote from: Karhedron on May 05, 2014, 08:46:38 PM
Quote from: ScottyStitch on May 05, 2014, 05:34:42 PMOne thought did cross my mind that might reduce cost. Could the manufacturer make an engine in a particular livery and then supply a sheet with all or a selection of numbers of that particular class in that particular livery for the modeler to select and add themselves.
Heljan tried that in 00 and they were very poor sellers, frequently ending up in the bargain bins of the box shifters. I can understand your reasoning but it seems in practice that the vast majority of modellers want to buy a fully finished model.
didn't Dapol try it with class 73s at one time ?
Quote from: trkilliman on May 05, 2014, 06:44:17 PM
In a slightly similar way I made a suggestion to Oxford diecast.
Corgi tried it a long while back with an OO Bristol L and K. It flopped.
Hornby tried it with Mk.3 coaches. You still get them sceondhand with only the part of the number that Hornby printed.
Heljan tried it with class 47s and it didn't sell.
Basically the only people who will buy them and apply them are the ones who are equally capable of removing the printed number and substituting another one anyway.
I would suggest there's a big difference between applying a number on a blank canvas and removing a number successfully and then applying a new one.
But if it doesn't sell, it doesn't sell. A huge opportunity missed in my opinion to vary one's stud.
Dapol did and it was a flop. Also it would cost more not less.
The changes needed are ones that make assembly cheaper and ones that avoid the massive tooling costs for current processes.
Doesn't mean less detail but smarter design, new assembly techniques such as more robots and new materials and processes.
Alan
Hopefully also better design mechanically. Anything that reduces the failure/return rate of the product will mean more profitable runs. The evolution of Dapol's locos (especially their steamers) has been informative. The latest locos are a great improvement over some of the early tank engines that would not pull the skin off a rice pudding.
Having said that, there is still room for improvement. Persistent motor overheating seems to be a bane of both their diesels and electrics. Also there seems to be an issue with the drive shafts slipping on at least some of the Westerns.
For me personally i would pay more for locomotives if they were built to higher standards of engineering quality... think Kato quality... and had the same level of detail as there is now... i wouldn't want more detail than at present as i like to look at n gauge at a distance for that trains in a landscape view.
and in a few years, bringing back manufacturing here may just happen. In the industry I work in, manufacture is coming back to Europe because the costs are offset by higher quality, output of the plant being higher than other countries and speed of manufacturing close to the consumer to be agile in demand.
Quote from: Zakalwe on May 07, 2014, 09:33:35 PM
and in a few years, bringing back manufacturing here may just happen. In the industry I work in, manufacture is coming back to Europe because the costs are offset by higher quality, output of the plant being higher than other countries and speed of manufacturing close to the consumer to be agile in demand.
I think this may happen relatively soon. China is pricing itself out f the market, and they are not building capacity enough, hence the increasing costs and lead times.
Perhaps India will be next, or Brasil, but soon I believe design and manufacturing it will come back home.
The 3D printing market will mature over the next 5 years and that will make a huge difference.
Cheers
Dave
I have just been looking at a couple of my Farish dmu's and close examination of the detail makes me wonder if my comments about UM's standards (earlier in the thread) were justified.