More Prototypical N-scale Models: Good or Bad?

Not sure exactly why, but the MT couplers at $30 30 years ago would be $68.82 now, while the Atlas hopper at $2.25 in 1984 would only be $5.16 now, not $13 or $17. I can only surmise that there has been retooling, change from old to new accumate couplers, etc. Its not the same model, while MT couplers probably are. (Not sure if the RDA tooling is in the trucks)

I agree its not just Chinese labor. I don't think you can pinpoint one factor. I will say that while I think they build in appropriate markup and profit, the free market keeps prices to no more than that. I doubt anyone is making a killing in N scale freight cars. costs just go up. And, that is a good thing, in small doses over time. Deflation would be a bigger problem for both the economy overall and N scale in particular (albeit, there would be some winners and losers.....)

 

Asian countries are certainly moving rapidly forward with sophisticated manufacturing of high quality models. This is troublesome that these same manufacturing skills are not being developed in the US. There may be future reasons that the US will need home grown talent of this type.
Also simple delays in shipping and shipping cost must be a factor in current prices compared to 30 years ago. Look at the prices in the grocery story compared to when items were produced closer to home.

 

Okay...I tried the abbreviated version, now I will drag it out.
I believe what we are seeing is a bet gone bad on the part of Atlas and their lower perception of quality versus M/T. Atlas bet that offshoring their manufacturing would give them the cost containment and flexibility to continue their business (offering a wide range of mid-tier products) - we are seeing that bet go wrong in terms of supply disruption and higher costs.
There are three things driving costs higher for Chinese made products that are more unique to China than other parts of the world (material inflation is pretty global):
1. Requirement for higher wages in China (growing middle class no longer wanting to work for minimal wages, skilled labor shortages as the skilled labor is working in hi-tech, other countries with younger/growing populations are undercutting Chinese labor costs like in Vietnam and in Africa) - model train factories are closing in China, putting the supplier in a position to demand higher prices from Atlas
2. Increased energy costs in both China and to transport items to and from China
3. Much higher cost of doing business when your manufacturing is based in China due to inventory costs (shipping stuff back and forth and delays) as well as increased corruption and problems with quality control
See this link for more details on the problems with the China manufacturing strategy that is plaguing our hobby - http://www.scale-modelers-handbook.com/Scale_Modeling_Tips__Tools_Monthly-China-syndrome.html
So bring that back to your example with the Atlas hopper.
A. Their bet to keeps costs low is not working out so they have to pass on higher costs to consumers (hence their cost going up faster than inflation).
B. In addition, there is more competition in n scale cars today so Atlas prices their mid-tier items higher and then discounts to get them to move...that discount is priced into the MSRP (just like the auto industry) so it drives the MSRP higher. When is the last time you heard of someone buying a car at sticker...you don't. The auto industry prices those discounts into the sticker price (which goes up much faster) to give them more flex on offering discounts to move vehicles as needed.
C. And then there other intangibles that I'm sure are putting pressure on Atlas and driving costs higher
-- need for higher profit margins to attract investment
-- they have to pay higher interest rates to borrow money to produce inventory as other categories of goods sell at a much faster rate than model railroading (investors want a greater return on their capital) which is probably viewed as a declining category, and they have more $s tied up in inventory because of their complex supply chain (things in transit between here and China and in warehouses in China)
M/T has a simpler, more focused product line than Atlas, they make it domestically so they have a simpler supply chain, they probably rely more on automation to keep productivity higher and costs lower, and they have a much better reputation so they don't need to discount as much to move products. So they are able to moderate their price increases and still make money.
So why can't Atlas just move back to the US? They don't have the capital to fund that move as I'm sure they got all kinds of help to move offshore...they will receive almost nothing to come back. It is a sizable investment in money, people and loss of prestige (admitting you made a mistake to your board or investors)
You have think about these actions over time...you are treating it like Atlas just moved their business today. Atlas did it awhile ago when economic conditions and outlooks were different. They just bet wrong on how things would turn out and they weren't alone.
Does this make more sense? Do you see the logic in how it turned out this way?
Cheers!
John

 

Evidently, it’s not that easy to separate one person’s desire for models with greater fidelity to the prototype from another person’s desire for minimal impact on the purchase price. Everyone has their personal point of diminishing returns. Likewise, there are various rationales being expressed to account for why (or why not) a proportional increase in fidelity to the prototype would result in a proportional increase in the purchase price. Like it or not, both discussions seem inextricably linked.

 

On topic.....

More Prototypical N-scale Models: Good or Bad?

Bottom line...

Bad...if its gonna cost me an arm and a leg to get it.

 

Because of Eagle 2's comment above, I will have to change my vote to all BAD.

 

I reward companies that make better quality, more detailed and fidelity to the prototype. I buy their products if they fit my modeling era and geographic area I prefer to model. I have avoided and generally don't get interested in models that do not keep up with innovation or choose to be dinosaurs... rehashing old tooling and not holding down prices.

An example of this was noted before regarding the old ConCor smooth side passenger cars. In the early days on N scale... they were desirable due to a lack of better alternatives. I would pay the $10 to $14 dollars for them in the 1980's and even bought a few 5 car sets for the $50 'bargain' price. I don't see any appreciable improvement other than the use of knuckle couplers... yet these cars are currently marketed at the same price as Centralia Car Shops and Wheels of Time. ConCor unfortunately won't see any purchases from me any time soon for those products. ConCor hasn't always done the 'wrong' thing... and in 2002 they came out with a very good quality Budd passenger car line. It wasn't perfect, but... I and many others found them to be a quantum leap in passenger car quality and fidelity (even though they put every Non-prototypical road name available). Those Budd cars were not cheap at $20 to $25 a piece... but... they were worth it at that time. Oddly enough... Kato later produced the 11 car California Zephyr... with virtually the same cars at an average price of about $15 per car.

Every time a model company has come up with an innovative or new product... most model railroaders will reward them with sales. Stagnant designs... overpriced/undervalue models will not sell if new alternatives are provided. Unfortunately... we have new price levels set from years of inflationary material and labor costs. These costs are not going to drop any time in the foreseeable future. Profit is the reward for the companies that make new products... and have to be factored into the cost equation too. No one is going to work for free... and the high risk of the model railroad market has to be factored into the sale prices.

 

I've gotten some cars recently that were works of art. If you look at some of the high end cars thru a dissecting microscope you can appreciate the amazing level of detail. Especially the data placards, perfectly legible.

Having said that, I have to say I'm not that interested. I like N-scale because you can run long trains thru big scenery on a small layout. If I was interested in exquisite details on individual cars, I think I would tend more toward the O scale end of the spectrum, not N. And from 3 feet away you can't see much difference between the high end and middle quality rolling stock (at least not with my eyes) anyway.

 

You make a very good point... which was part of my original thought when I began explaining my position. The majority of N scalers are really looking at the overall effect of the scale not just the locomotive or rolling stock details.

HOWEVER... the better looking the models are... and the more reliable they operate... and fidelity to whatever prototype (IF that's important to the modeler) are factors that add to the enjoyment of the hobby. The 'THREE FOOT' rule was one of those axioms used by N scalers to avoid discussing the oversized handrails, coupler, roof-walk and any other detracting issue with the models running on the layout.

I think the problem with details and fidelity and other key words that are part of this discussion really began when we began taking CLOSE-UP PHOTOS of N scale... and the 'three-foot rule' became the 'three inch rule'... which I guess states that if you can see defects from three inches away... the model was not worthy of photography. Now with digital cameras virtually becoming microscopes... the 'three inch rule' is becoming the 'three millimeter rule'. At this level I guess we are shredding manufacturers that don't get the right rivet sizes on the handrails attached to the body of the locomotive or rolling stock.

 

If it wasn't for the better detailed, more accurate models , particularly freight cars, I wouldn't have made the switch back to N after 37 years in HO, although I still prefer to buy my locos undec and detail and paint myself.

I suppose since I was already use to paying $30-$40 for the current crop of HO cars, the $15-$20 I usually pay for N doesn't seem as much of a detriment to me. I accepted long ago that I usually couldn't afford the entire run of different numbers a mfg. released. The prices forced me to become a disciplined buyer.

I'm pretty picky about what I buy. It has to fit my era and area modeled. I won't buy a foobie but I try not to overly obsess about little things. If a 40' boxcar has 7 rung ladders instead of the prototypes 8, I'll still go for it, but I won't buy a 40' PS-1 lettered for a railroad that only had AAR style boxcars.

Bob

 

THIS + + + + + + LOL

 

Points:

(1) Hmmm...I haven't read anybody "shredding manufacturers" yet...except manufacturers who make stuff you think are too expensive. Here, the manufacturers who make the most detailed stuff are those who are taking the hits...and model train photography is a major interest of mine. The close-ups are to illustrate points. But with a 24Mb sensor in my DSLR and a Nikon Micro lens, a tripod and Helicon Focus...even scenes taken from a "God's Eye View" have details upon enlargement that you don't see with your eyes in the flesh.

Mo' detail in those scenic photos makes for better photos generally, unless I'm trying for a "mood". Detailed macro photography is also a great tool for improving your modeling, as the camera doesn't lie.

I don't perceive this as a problem...whatsoever...just the opposite.

(2) I am an old-timer...I'm 65. I am a confirmed rivet counter, a fanatic, a detail freak. I always have been, I always will be, with the help of Lasik eye surgery and my three pairs of optivisors (no, I don't wear them all at the same time!).

To assume that "all old-timers" have the same opinion as you has now been disproved.

(3) The position I posed for this poll was "The trend towards more scale fidelity in N-scale is..." and is not limited by the question or the answers you choose to merely rolling stock and locomotive details. It applies to ALL ASPECTS of modeling in N-scale, and it follows that it includes operation, scenery, prototype modeling, lighting-sound effects, signalling, structures and everything else I don't have time to write down.

It also includes the "attitude" of wanting, and working towards more scale fidelity...of not being satisfied with the status quo.

(4) The "Three Foot Rule" is not a "rule"....it's an excuse. Yes, I can hear the thoughts now, all about the N-scale locomotives not actually operating under steam or diesel power, or something similar. I've heard all that nonsense a thousand times and it has no bearing whatsoever to the detail oriented modeler, since that has nothing to do with detailing a model, or operating realistically. The very nature of modeling anything in 1:160th scale imposes limitations on us. But, it's a fact that there are modelers who really like to do stuff in N-scale that is just insane...and who think that details you can see with a 300% enlargement on your hi-res monitor contribute greatly to the "overall effect".

Hey, I haven't talked about more detail raising the price at all!!

Look at the graph. The results of this poll are pretty plain so far. The participants, by a margin of approximately 5 to 1, think details are good for N-scale.

Of course, that doesn't mean we're correct, but it definitely reflects a predominant attitude...which doesn't include The Three-Foot excuse.

Happy Modeling!!

Bob Gilmore

 

Sorry, but what you said may sound real nice but your logic is flawed. First of all higher wages cannot account for any appreciable increase in the price of a freight car. In the last ten years (2004-2014) the average Chinese wage increased from 15024 yuan to 51474 yuan. That converts from $2,595 to $8,338. That is approximately 300% but because Atlas must share factory production time with other 'manufacturers' only a fraction of that cost is borne by Atlas. Not only that but the cost is not just for one product but is shared by other Atlas products. So any increase is quite small when applied to one item.
Secondly, energy costs have gone up but energy costs today are actually lower than they were in 2008. Did prices go down? NOPE!
Third, higher costs of doing business in China. Bingo!!!!! How many times does it take for management to see that searching for greener pastures in the ever present hunt for lower costs is a fallacy. This has occurred repeatedly with every company that tried it. Atlas should have known better too. After all there was a time when Atlas made product in Yugoslavia and Italy. The best economic strategy is to locate your production in the country where your biggest market is. That is what MT did.

Your other points about discounting from a higher price is a nowhere argument. Price the product reasonably in the first place. Haggling over prices is a way of doing business in some countries but not here. As far as interest rates go, they are actually lower now than they were six years ago.

 

Your concept versus wages is flawed. If I pay 300% more for that same amount of time it is a factor. How much of a factor depends on what percentage of the production cost is labor.

 

Now, there's the difference.
If you're going to be taking photos of your models using a multi-megapixel camera with a close-up (macro) lens and enlarge them, then the presence of vanishingly small details could become a priority.

OTOH, I haven't needed laser vision correction and don't own an optivisor.
Three feet is the usual distance from which I view my layout - it's not some excuse.
If I were ever to start examining my models under a microscope (or with a macro lens), maybe my opinion on the need for ever smaller details would change and, in that case, I'd probably just switch to a larger scale.

 

As a trend? It's good!

Having said that, being 64, retired, fixed income, dimming eyes ... I'm not a rivet-counter, but I don't want to be looking at Thomas the Tank, either.

At the same time, I don't want to see a third rail unless it's a light rail system with a third rail and shoe, or subway. OTOH, I'll run diesel and electric locos where there are prototype catenaries and cheat by using rail power; I may or may not bother with the catenary poles, but I'm not going to mess with the wires either way.

As BoxcabE50 said, it's about personal satisfaction.