With the costs of production in China increasing , we have seen some huge price increases on some RTR items, particularly some wagons that have a wealth of separately fitted parts, like the recent Grainflow hoppers. The cost of getting all the separate detail parts fitted is seen as one of the biggest cost factors due the labour needed. Some items produced in the time of cheap Chinese labour are now not considered financially viable to re-release?

I wonder if there is a case for manufacturers to bring out some items in a more knocked-down format, for example a Seacow ballast hopper consisting of a ready painted body, separate bogies and a sprue for the remaining detail parts? Vehicles such as the Grainflow Hoppers, Seacows and some of the coaches with intricate underframes would be ideal for this treatment.

If it meant being able to buy a bogie wagon for, say, £15 instead of £400 and have to spend an evening doing some modelling, I probably wouldn't mind.

It probably isn't for everybody - there was a backlash against ViTrains for the large amount of separate bits that needed fitting to their 4mm diesels.

Opinions?

I would be happy with your idea as long as a good set of exploded diagrams were included. It would also mean you could get a consistent finish if you did a whole rake in one go.

Although I think there were tax reasons too, wasn't this the idea of Triang CKD kits years back?

I'd be up for the idea of a CKD loco or wagon/coach as Richard says with proper instructions, but I don't know how viable it would be as a concept?

How much of the total cost of a product even now is labour? As components would still need to be sorted/bagged and packed/shipped how much cheaper would these CKD kits actually be?

Also bear in mind it could be seen to conflict with sales of a manufacturer's own RTR range so could they be persuaded to do it I wonder?

Roy

I think a lot of people, including me, would battle a bit to add the really tiny detail parts. The Chinese ladies who do the work in the factory are a lot better at the job than I would ever be.

I rarely add all the detail parts to my locos and coaches, I did detail the buffer beam of a class 67 not so long ago but it was rather nerve wracking (Mainly because the bits didn't actually fit in the holes and needed fettling)

I agree about instructions and if an extra set of detail parts were provided that would help too.

I think the concept would work a lot better in OO but that doesn't help us.

Imagine all the rolling stock with poorly fitted detail parts and excess glue marks that would end up on eBay.

I don't think the Tri-ang CKD kits lasted long in the catalogue so I don't think it was a roaring success back then so although it might be an attractive idea for some I can't see it happening.

Quote from: Roy L S on November 22, 2015, 01:25:35 PM
How much of the total cost of a product even now is labour? As components would still need to be sorted/bagged and packed/shipped how much cheaper would these CKD kits actually be?

If they could indeed all be supplied on one sprue as suggested, the cost of including this in the box ought to be minimal.  This does of course mean that all must be made of the same sort of plastic in the same colour. 

This is one of the oddoties of model railways
They are models, but the manufacturers make it difficult for easy personalisation, unlike other self-build models

Farish have started providing the ability to apply additional detailing, which some people do not apply (and to me defeats the purpose unless they are optional)

Several suppliers have offered kits, but their appeal seems to be limited
I tried the Ultima Commonwealth bogies, but I found they were not robust enough, when compared to OE parts

Lima did start generic models, they sold very well and were ideal for people to personalise their model or as a base for repainting
Sadly neither Farish or Dapol seem to want to repeat this; just think how many Class 47s they could sell in base Large Logo Blue livery!

Models should be cheaper when parts are common, but sadly they are few and far between now
If you take the latest Dapol Mark 3, there are many common parts, so all you need are different bodies, but just look at how long it has taken for the missing TGS body...

This comes up from time to time.  I think the conclusion is always that it couldn't offer the type of saving necessary to make it work.

The key points seem to be:
Assembly costs make up a tiny fraction of the purchase price.
There isn't sufficient demand for it to be worthwhile.
Un-numbered locos have been proven to be poor sellers.

Possibly also that kits would steal sales from the RTR range.

Peco wagons are available assembled and in kit form; but I think Bachmann wants to be known as a manufacturer of complete models.

Quote from: mjkerr on November 22, 2015, 03:31:13 PM
Models should be cheaper when parts are common, but sadly they are few and far between now
If you take the latest Dapol Mark 3, there are many common parts, so all you need are different bodies, but just look at how long it has taken for the missing TGS body...

Rock and a hard place. When manufacturers make models using generic parts, we lay into them for getting the bogie slightly wrong on the type-2A whatever, but then we bemoan the fact every new piece of rolling stock seems to cost a small fortune.

For my part, I'd sooner manufacturers produced a small range of good models at higher prices than try to be "all things to all people" and get the important stuff wrong. There are plenty of kit manufacturers out there, many of which are one-man-bands turning out niche products. Finding out about these kits can be a challenge, but with a bit of effort you can get some very straightforward kits that don't require an A-level in Brass Folding or a BTEC in Applied Soldering.

Cheers, NeMo

A good idea (and something that I could happily live with), however I think there is a fundamental problem in that the market is just too small to support such fragmentation.  For injection moulded stuff you still need really to be producing in the region of a 1000 somethings (self assembly doesn't help there).

If you don't sell all those 1000 somethings because you have fragmented the market as some people only want finished models then you either have lots of cash tied up in stock or you have to price higher to cover the costs of those you can't sell!

Cheers, Mike

I've read very recently on another forum discussion about the Triang CKD kits (MRE Magazine?-I can't remember-showing my age again) and one conclusion was that this was done to avoid Purchase Tax.
Most contributions to the discussion were similar to what has been said here-too small a market, too fiddly for many, only a small part of the cost, etc, etc.

As an aside, the costs of getting a container from China to Europe has fallen to a very low level- some container shipping lines are now having financial problems.....

Martyn

The closest thing I have seen to a part built kit is the Dapol class 86 chassis from Hattons.

But that was more expensive than the painted versions! While in theory its a good idea I think would only attact those who kit built and even then they would just get a kit which is even cheaper!

For China build it doesn't generally work. The cost of packing all the parts safely is actually often higher than the cost of assembling the thing.

Most models simply don't fall into the volume where they can be automated, and that is a *killer* for costs.

Alan

Maybe the solution is fewer separate parts (where appropriate) on bodies and dispensing with working features such as lights. Moulded on detail, like handrails, can look good and in some cases more to scale in N. I always thought the fan/roof grille detail on the old farish 31 was pretty good but it could have done with separate cab handrails.

I know a few will be saying it echoes of Hornby's "design clever" principal but with costs going up it maybe the only option in the long term. Whilst on the subject of costs,  I've noticed there's some difference in price between dapol and farish, particularly coaches. Having looked at prices, a coach is around £5 cheaper from dapol on average.

Cheers

Carl

Quote from: apollo45115 on November 29, 2015, 03:12:00 PM
I know a few will be saying it echoes of Hornby's "design clever" principal

Hasn't this now been abandoned ?  To quote Simon Kohler, "Take for example the period at Hornby when I had to endure the lowering of the detail level in models – the Design Clever period.  I knew the whole reasoning was fundamentally flawed when the Board decided to adopt such a backward step and I argued against such a policy".  Why follow a flawed and abandoned style ?

QuoteI've noticed there's some difference in price between dapol and farish, particularly coaches.

And BMW sell at a different price to Ford ... sorry Carl, but I'm not seeing your point here ?  It's not the same as comparing a price from Shop A with those of Shop B for Item X ...