More Prototypical N-scale Models: Good or Bad?

This is not really so. I am not oblivious to the cost increases and I am not on any funding restrictions. It is just I remember rolling stock not costing so much, and I have dramatically curtailed purchases. I only focus on a few manufacturers and only very few models. The expanded costs are affecting all modelers across all fiscal lines. Several of my friends are in the same economic circles as I am and they have also slowed down thier purchases.

Because of all the costs going up, this hobby has become less and less affordable to all hobbyists.

 

Wheels of time cars look wonderful, but on all of mine the body rubs the top of the coupler enough to cause massive derailments.
Easy enough to fix, but I don't need anymore round tuits.

 

Then the problem is the limits of a fixed income for some, not the cost of the hobby.

I'm not independently wealthy either. But not having the same income that I use to is not the fault of N-Scale manufacturers. We all live within our means.

It's not like there are no affordable deals to be had out there. We just make fewer, wiser choices.

We all hate having to pay $4 or more per gallon for gas. But nostalging for the days of 0.99 cent a gallon has no bearing on the cost of driving today.

 

Boxcab, my remarks weren't necessarily directed toward you. You just happen to be the one that quoted my own.

You must admit though, there is a group here that are frequently b-ing & m-ing the passing of the "good ol days' when in reality we've never had it so good.

While I'm between layouts right now, and don't have the fungible income I once did, I for one am still getting more enjoyment from this hobby than I ever have. These are not children's toys. They are fine precision mechanisms and highly detailed historical representations of a once powerful industry.

Sure, I'd like to obtain everything that catches my eye. But I can't. That's not the fault of the manufacturers but the limits of my own income. And it makes me appreciate and enjoy all the more what I already have accumulated in this hobby.

 

I voted good and bad, leaning toward bad. I don't like the higher prices and the superfine (and VERY fragile) detail of some models today.

Give me Micro-Trains cars with their excellent and durable fine details, or Intermountain kits. Intermountain cars are about as detailed as I want. You can pick one up without it falling apart, and goodness knows I've assembled more of their kits than I care to admit LOL.

I have a number (i.e., lots!) of Atlas Trainman cars. The detail is good enough, and they used to be cheap. Somehow, I have trouble accepting that a Trainman ore car now lists for $14.95. The car is 2 INCHES LONG! They can be had for 1/3 off, though, if you know where to look.

 

I say it's good and bad,also leaning mostly to bad..It's cool that there's all this really nice stuff,but the cost is just getting stupid.I mean,seriously,upwards of 30 dollars for a 40 foot boxcar? 35 bucks for a trailer???If I were a young man now,looking for a hobby,as I walked through my LHS,I'd take one look at the case full 100+ dollar N scale locomotives,and after I recovered from the shock,I'd leave with an RC car for the same price..A few years back,my buddy came to the hobby shop with me,I paid something like 25 bucks for one of the new Atlas Wide Vision Cabooses with the MTL couplers,painted railings,ETC,he looked at me like I was crazy..I could see the look on his face if I walked out with a 35 dollar hopper..For the price of three or four new locomotives these days,I could buy a nice collector gun that will double in value in ten years. Seriously,if I didn't have all the trains I have,I'd be out of this in a heartbeat.Sure,I'll buy more,but I bet most of it will be used.I'm perfectly happy with the state of trains ten years ago.
To me,it was always about the modeling..

 

I said it is good. While everyone has different standards on how prototypical they want to be, having more realistic equipment even with the up charge is desirable since it is a hobby. The one problem we all have is having enough time for our leisure pursuits. They used to be called toy trains, now it it is model railroad as a nod to what we are all doing - modelling some operating system of equipment and trackage. And while new model costs have gone up for many reasons, you also have access to all kinds of cost conscious purchasing avenues like the bay, internet hobby shops, and resale sites. My contention is that I have more real purchasing power today than when I started in the 1980's as a youngster in the hobby because of all the choices. And the higher costs have delivered more capabilities and in a lot of cases better quality and more choices than the "good old days."

 

How is it that when I got into the hobby some thirty years ago an Atlas 90 ton hopper (made in the USA) was retailing for $2.25 and a bulk pack of MT trucks with couplers (made in the USA) was retailing for about $30.00. Today that same 90 ton hopper (now made in China)is retailing for $17.95 while the same MT trucks and couplers (still made in the USA) retails for $51.00. If going to China was to lower costs then why the eight fold increase in the hopper but less than a twofold increase in the trucks and couplers? Please explain this as my Eco 101 class has no explanation.

 

Interesting how the assumption is that more details equals higher prices.

Just to be clear, and use facts, rather than "feelings", I decided to see how much an old N-scale Kadee car I bought in 1980, adjusted for inflation, should cost today. Yes, it will cost "more", but taking into account the rise in costs of everything else, today's dollar is worth considerably less than 1980's dollar, so...it's not logical to compare 1980's literal prices with today's unless you take into account the inflationary rate.

To get a correct inflationary rate I visited the United States Department of Labor Statistics website and used their "Inflation Calculator" which is found here: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

My 1980 Kadee Micro-Trains 40' Union Pacific Livestock Despatch stock car has a Kadee price sticker on it of $7.80. When I plug this into the inflation calculator, that car should have an MSRP today (2014) of $22.56.

So, I went online to see if I could find a 2014 price on this car. Unfortunately, after ten minutes, I couldn't find any "new" UP Livestock Despatch stock cars. However, I found plenty of MTL's latest stock car release, a WP, but with a less complicated paint scheme. Its MSRP is $16.95. I doubt that the MSRP on the yellow/silver U.P. Livestock Despatch cars would be 6 bucks more. Actual best price was $11.90.

Looks like most MTL cars are only slightly better detailed than they were in 1980, specifically the underbodies, now with more detailed plastic "inserts" rather than the die-cast one-piece metal ones on the 80's cars and lower profile flanges on their wheelsets.

It appears that the prices on most MTL cars have actually gotten cheaper, as they're not keeping up with what their old prices should be if adjusted for 2014.

In this instance, more details (albeit minor detailing) has NOT resulted in an increase in price. Better "fidelity" has been a freebie.

What has caused the huge majority of price increases in cars and engines over the years is just plain old inflation...which has N O T H I N G to do with how much detail is on a model...up to a point.

You gotta take into consideration that manufacturing injection molds (dies) is a lot cheaper nowadays than it used to be since the advent of CNC, CAD and DNC in the early 90's. Old molds (dies) were made by hand, on big Bridgeport Mills by a highly paid, highly skilled artisan reading blueprints and wearing magnifiers...carving the cavities out of tool steel, or beryllium copper...which took a LOT longer than plopping a chunk of 7075 aluminum down and letting the CNC mill go to work. Modern hard aluminum alloys will allow a 10,000 cycle life on molds, which is plenty for the volumes in N-scale model railroading, but when these wear out, it's not that big a deal to mill a new one.

What I'm sayin' is that more details do not necessarily mean higher price.

Sometimes it does. Take, for example, the gorgeous Trainworx GS Gondolas, with wire grabs, etched brake platforms and stirrups, separate end ladders and MTL trucks with talgo couplers and low-pro wheels. Its MSRP in 2014 dollars is $24.95.

The equivalent less-detailed car is the MTL 40' GS Gondola. It doesn't have any wire or etched details, and all the grabs and ladders are cast-on. Stirrups are the very nice separate engineering plastic MTL design (which look nearly as good as the etched Trainworx ones). The underbody detailing on the MTL car is better than the Trainworx car, but...ya can't see it unless you turn the car upside down. Its MSRP is $14.45.

When I'm photographing or running at shows, I run the $10 more expensive Trainworx cars. When operating at home, the MTL cars supply both sand and coal to my Echo Coaling Tower and Sand House...as do the Trainworx cars. In other words, when I want to show off, I gravitate to the more expensive, better-detailed cars.

Using the inflation calculator backwards, the price of the MTL car in 1980 (MTL didn't make them then) would have been $5.00. The Trainworx car would have been $8.63 in 1980...which I would have gladly paid for the extra level of detailing.

Although a LOT more detailing does cost more, the Trainworx car is not typical. The present day MTL cars are slightly more detailed than they were 30 years ago, and they cost less nowadays (in adjusted dollars).

Some detailing...or "fidelity" won't cost more, such as manufacturing cars to ride at the correct height, or changing over to low-pro wheelsets when the old dies wear out. MTL's paint accuracy has also greatly improved over 30 years ago...with no increase in relative prices.

As an aside, the separate details on the Trainworx cars do not fall off, break or otherwise cause me heartburn. I don't treat them any more delicately than I do any other car I own.

I also don't treat my non-superdetailed engines any differently either. They all get treated properly and gently. I don't have parts falling off of any of it.

Wishing to change the prices of everything back to what they were 30 to 40 years ago has zero validity. We gotta live within our budgets, and if prices get so high nobody's buying anything, lots more than the model railroad industry will fail. And this has got nothing to do with scale fidelity or separate details.

I also went to a couple of places online to see just what the prices of 40' boxcars are. I went through the entire list on several sites and only saw maybe three or four that were over 20 bucks. The rest were hovering around 16 to 17 bucks. So, what's with the "30 dollar" 40' boxcar? I can't find 'em. If your LHS is selling N-scale cars for that price, you need to shop somewhere else, because it's HIM and not the added scale fidelity that's jacking up the price at your locale.

Which brings me to my conclusion. GOOD. The trend toward better scale fidelity in N-scale has been great for the industry, and I highly appreciate the manufacturers who listen to their customers!

 

Wage inflation in china is accelerating much more than in the US due to continuous improvements in productivity in the US. And I would think M/Ts product line is simpler and more automated than Atlas so they could yield greater manufacturing efficiencies. The other thing is inventories and impact on cash flow....atlas now has a complex supply chain with a lot of inventory floating at sea or in china. M/T can get product to market (convert products to cash) faster so that goes into their economic model as a margin generator. Last, M/T has greater pricing power so people will buy their couplers at $51. I think Atlas sells very few hoppers at $17 - those discounts are factored into the pricing as they have to discount those models to move the inventory to recover their investments. Maybe Econ 201 will provide more clarifications.

 

Sorry....but I am getting a good chuckle out of various statements claiming we want to turn the clock back 30 to 40 years. I cant find ONE instance of anyone saying that. No one expects rolling stock to be $5.00 apiece today. Cars at $24.00 apiece may seem ok to a few people...but when you add just 10 of them up...the price is beyond most people. We havent even gotten to locomotives yet !!

All the boring stuff aside...added details DO add to the final cost a customer has to pay. Still my opinion...which hasnt and wont be changed...thnxs.

AND NO...whether I can afford it or not...I most certainly WONT get out of the hobby...LOL

BTW...when does the last train leave for TRW...All Aboard !!!

 

I am not referencing prices before or after, but I will disagree with the statement that the details are not driving up the costs. The inflation calculator is just a one-sided look at the situation. With the advances in manufacturing, costs are supposed to be going down. This is what is happening at my former company which is a manufacturing company and in the general manufacturing business sector. I know how much it costs to cut tooling for casting, die casting and injection molds. We were able to go from Pro-Engineer to CNC and fab things in a fraction of the time and cost over "traditional" methods. This is not the trend here in this hobby. The tooling seems to be in a constant state of repair in the case of many things, most notably Atlas code 55 track. The fact that the tooling needs to be repaired rather than just be regenerated tells you that they are not using state of the art manufacturing, and probably are using hand crank Bridgeports. There are tools made everyday that are a great deal more complicated than that of a locomotive shell or rolling stock that cost a fraction of the cost that has been bandied about over the years for N scale items.

The true cost comparison model would have to look at the currency trading fluctuations, domestic import/export ratios and a host of other things including labor statistics, material costs and inventory costs of materials.

All that said, it is partly the details because to the greater tooling costs for the increased details and partly because of the cost of materials increasing. The cost of plastics is directly tied to the cost of oil since plastics are a product made from petroleum. Costs of metals is also increasing due to demand in many different areas not even closely related to model trains.

My stance against buying like I used to, is because I do not see the value in a $35 covered hopper no matter the level of detail.

Lets look a Fox Valley again, on the locomotives, they include modeler installed details for those that can do that and want that. The question that needs to be thought about is how much a Fox Valley Gevo would cost is the details came applied? Would that be at a price point that would scare consumers away? Maybe that is the reason they do not come installed. Look at the cost increase in the IM passenger cars when they went from the first release with no way to add interiors or lighting. Now they have interiors and lighting that increased the cost $10.00 per car.

As I said it is a double edged sword. Yes it is great that the detail levels are improving, but the bad is the increase in costs to get there. In the past I used to spend thousands of dollars per month on cars and locomotives because I saw value in the products at the price point. In the past year, I may have only spent $1,000, if that, on cars and locomotives because I see a diminishing value-price point situation.

The good part of that is that it allows me to catch up on other areas, like the new benchwork for the new layout and decoders in the locomotives I have decided to keep. Anymore, it has to be a perfect fit for my needs before I buy anything, detailed or not.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to publicly say facts don't matter to your opinion! I think all of us old timers (I am 59) feel similar to you in many ways. So, as someone pointed out, its not all or nothing. We buy less. We make do. We use the options we do have to mix fleet with a few superstars and a lot of "extras."(I have always felt the advantage on N is you don't really NEED the detail, as the impression is created by longer trains) You build a switching layout and for long trains join NTrak, etc.

As Sharkman points out right below you, inflation isn't consistent across products. And, if we buy less, the costs are spread out over fewer units, so they also tend to go up. The Atlas cracked C55 mold is a special case, but does illustrate that stuff happens to the mfg, all of which affects price.

That said, in general, the extra detail is truly a freebie to us, regardless of how we feel, statistically speaking.

Also, we always had the power to shape the market. If we didn't show the mfgs that we would buy only continually improved products, they might have gone a different way. When times are tough (such as the last 5 years or so) Atlas and others really reduced new products and issued old repaints, which held prices.

For that matter, as a mature market, where any new product is more likely to be more road specific (like IM tunnel motors, used only by a few roads, vs. an F7 used by all) and less commercially viable, may be a driver of higher prices. For that matter, all the easy to mold box cars have been done (although a few clamor for more road specific ones there, like the B and O Wagon top) and any new car is more likely to be a more era specific car, appealing to fewer modelers.

But it is far from black and white, more grey. There are just a lot of factors that go into pricing the basic elements of our MRR needs. N may be unique in the number of us in NTrak only, making the scale focus more on locos and rolling stock than perhaps HO and O (or G, where one loco and a few narrow gauge cars seem to suffice on many layout.....)

I guess the long and short of it, as NMTrainman points out, is we do like to complain about what's wrong, and ignore the good stuff as "the way it should be" but bottom line is none of us is getting out of this hobby. Luckily, if running trains is what we really like, we probably all have enough stuff to stop buying RIGHT NOW and still enjoy the hobby. Any new rolling stock a veteran buys is purely a choice of how to spend discretionary funds, although, most of us like new product enough to think its mandatory........

 

I think offering more prototypical locomotives and rolling stock in n-scale is a strong positive move by virtue of it attracting modeler who are advocates of model railroading on the long term basis. I started when I was in graduate school after 4 years in the USAF, thus a "more seasoned" newcomer to n-scale in 1973-74.

 

My concept again of a more proto loco or car is maybe a little more simplistic than some. The correct length and wheelbase of which we have had many that didn't come near. With steam it is the correct, or as close to correct, as one can get driver size and wheelbase. And nice sharp crisp details. It doesn't matter to me whether they are cast on or separately applied. Case in point was when the LL FA-1 was introduced. It raised the bar on future covered wagon releases with it's nice crisp detail and a few separately added parts. Best of all it could be handled with fear of breaking stuff off or damaging it. I like others have stated like the idea of being able to loosen a single screw or two at most and being able to lift a shell off to get to a mechanism to do service. Not to have to literally disassemble a pilot and fight to get handrails off a cab so that the cab can be removed so that the body can finally be removed maybe.

I have a very good retirement with income from four different sources and my Missus has a dual income also so we are not in a hurt for finances. However I do have other things to do with my money and I do consider the prices on a lot of stuff out there to be exorbitantly high. A single eight car passenger train consist prices out to about $240 not counting the motive power. A freight consist of just ten cars can price out to $200 to $290 not counting power and a caboose if your modeling era had them. Even buying stuff at a discounted rate still gets very expensive for a young person starting out. Do I need lighting systems in passenger cars? Or separately applied details if the cast on ones are fine and crisp and the paint job decent not a dip in the bucket job?

I have some passenger cars that I purchased not to far back that have a lighting system and I really don't like them. At some point the batteries on that system will go bad meaning I have to take the cars apart to service that. Add the costs of replacing the batteries and the chances of damaging something taking them apart they are not worth the money. And they are more pricey than the Kato versions which use track power for lighting. And even for all that increased costs for those cars they still couldn't get the color right. And somebody please explain to me why I can buy a nicely detailed Kato car for less than the old recycled Concor cars that are using the same molds basically since their inception with only an interior upgrade and coupler upgrade on some, and those upgrades do not justify that much of a price hike and those old Concors now go for triple what they used to be.

MT stepped up with a very nice series of heavyweights that were certainly needed. But what you got for that expensive car was a car that could not operate worth a dang on anything less than a 17 inch radius without the modeler doing a modification to the trucks to get it to at least operate on 15 inch radius.

So are we better off? Yes in some aspects we are Like with split frame locos and dual mode decoders that let the DC folks run their way and the DCC folks to play also. In others we are not. Locos are harder to service, and generally under perform a lot of the older stuff in the ability to pull their own weight much less a decent consist. Steam does finally have better pick-up electrically mainly due to all wheel pick-up tenders but not everybody is on board yet with that and finally it seems like at least we have left the cracked gears and crumbling frames behind.

But prices will be the big determiner on whether this hobby stays viable and healthy. Without entry level locos and cars it is only a matter of time before this hobby becomes a wealthy man's or woman's toy pricing the young newcomer right out of the market. And the cheaper entry level will pay the bills and keep the companies afloat. For the person who desires more (read in here detail fanatic) there is a very active market with companies like Gold Medal and BLMA, Miniatures by Eric, and a lot of others, for those who wish to have more detail and the tools plus knowhow to accomplish that. And I haven't even mentioned the impact of the single individual and Shapeways on add on detail parts.

However attracting new blood into the hobby is it's lifeline and we need to be able to make it affordable enough to do that. Without those cheaper cars and locomotives I would not have been able to sustain my hobby interests back when I was much younger and raising four kids with a stay at home Wife on much less income than I have today.

 

I fail to see the logic here. I used MSRP prices. I realize I can get Atlas hoppers for less than $17.00 but by the same token I can get MT bulk packs of couplers for less than $51.00 too. But even using the discounted, 'street price' for both there is still a huge difference in the increase in pricing. The street price for a bulk pack of MT trucks and couplers is about $38.00 while the Atlas 90 ton hopper is $13.25 for the newest release. Again the MT price is less than twice the price back 30 years ago when a bulk pack went for about $23.00 and the Atlas 90 ton hopper was less than $2.00. So while inflation has raised the price of both the percentage of the Atlas increase is far above that of MT. I seriously doubt this can all be attributed to an increase in wages in China. Also if, as you say, MT has greater manufacturing efficiencies than Atlas then why did Atlas go to China and why are they still there? You say Atlas' supply chain is complex. I say that adding complexity to anything is expensive in its own right. The KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) method applies to manufacturing as well as supply lines. Henry Ford gave us the assembly line system. Nothing complex about that. So why have a complex manufacturing and supply system? I don't have that answer maybe Atlas or someone else does.