Soooo...everyone will buy one and scrap the sound decoder that comes with it and buy a newer better one. YET....they still pay for that crappy one that comes in it new. Question: whats the cost of that crappy one plus the cost of a better one ? Figuring 2 decoders in the purchase price has got to jack the price up quite a bit. Once again...just make it DC or DCC with no sound...and let the consumer decide if they want sound and what THEY want in it. Still NOT rocket science....LOL
Other things at the National Train Show of interest to me were PS coal gons from Fox Valley, no road names announced. 8 panel 2 bay open hoppers from Bluford, B&O and C&O (later schemes) being 2 of the road names announced.
I think most people that want sound will run them as they are . I'm in the small minority that is a little more picky . If they made a straight DCC model that was an easy plug in for sound , that would be perfect . But I don't see that happening .
I do not work for Bachmann and cannot speak for them, but I can tell you according to the PRR K4 I purchased from Bachmann, all locomotives were decoder equipped. The K4's will run on DC and play sound because the Analog Mode bit in CV29 is enabled. To the best of my knowledge, in DC you do not have control of the bell or whistle and when you place your throttle at zero the sound will stop. All sound functions are available in DCC mode and you have the choice of three different whistle sounds. I can understand Bachmann's point of view, It seems the current desire from most model railroaders is sound + DCC and Bachmann is trying to meet that need. I suffer from sticker shock as much as the next person, but we have to face reality, nothing is getting any cheaper. If it wasn't for Bachmann we'd still be waiting on a PRR K4. They also released several versions of the 2-8-4 Berk. How long has it been since Walthers / Life-Like released their Berk and will we ever see it again? Bachmann is already on the second run of K4's. To date, Bachmann has been a good resource for Steam locomotives in N scale. Here in the United States have been benefiting the most from Bachmann. In the UK, Bachmann's Graham Farish product line is just now releasing DCC + sound equipped locomotives. The vast majority of the Graham Farish locomotives just have a DCC plug. I know some would like a plug only, but from what I've seen over the last several years, the majority in the hobby now want DCC on board. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm glad to see Bachmann releasing the 2-8-0 with a sound value DCC decoder.
Not a survey, but look at what the manufactures are producing. Do you think the manufactures drive the industry? People are purchasing DCC + Sound, so they continue to manufacture DCC + Sound. If no one was purchasing the products, they would stop making them. It's simple economics, supply and demand, companies like Bachmann, Athearn and Atlas cannot afford to sell duds, they only produce what they know will sell. If the opposite was true, I would already have a N scale model of a FM H20-44.
Over on the Bachmann forum the Bachmann spokesperson stated they make what their distributors order. It does not benefit the manufacturer to have an inventory of items that don't sell. Distributors take their cue from their venders be they your local hobby shop or the bigger mail order places. Personally I think Bachmann should have come out with a different model if only to just change the body shell. But maybe they are intent on adding sound to all their steam and diesel offerings so that, going forward, will be their standard. Personally I and apparently others would prefer that Bachmann (as well as other manufacturers) do not adopt a proprietary decoder as they have couplers. While couplers are relatively cheap to replace, sound decoders are not. If no inventory is a goal of theirs then it would seem to make sense to manufacture engines that would appeal to the widest customer base possible. There are already restrictions on sales. For example, Kato would sell more if they suddenly realized that there are potential customers who model RR's east of the Mississippi River. Then there are those who model a certain era or a certain RR. Some of these restrictions cannot be removed but some can. In the case of DCC and sound there are people (and a sizeable number) who don't want either as well as a sizeable number who, while they welcome DCC+ sound, do not want the Bachmann decoder. Producing a 'plug and play' locomotive would satisfy everyone. That way those who don't want DCC are not required to pay for a decoder that they will not use. Those who want DCC but not the proprietary decoder, can use a decoder of their choosing and again not pay for a decoder they will not use. While those who want the proprietary decoder can buy it separately. This does not negatively affect inventory. Quite the opposite, it would have a positive effect in making the product available to a larger customer base. If there is a downside to this, I don't see it; inventory is simplified, costs (and price) are lowered, sales are increased and customers are not alienated.
The first part of your post agrees with my quote. The part I believe everyone is missing, people continue to purchase locomotives equipped with DCC + Sound, so the manufacture believes this is what people want. If people do not want locomotives equipped with DCC + Sound, 1) They need to stop purchasing those locomotives even if it's a model they want. 2) They need to contact Walthers, Horizon, Internet Hobby sites and tell them you only want a universal plug and have them pass that info on to the manufactures. 3) Contact the manufactures directly and tell them you want a universal plug, not DCC + Sound on board. On a side note, the decoder used in the Bachmann sound value locomotives is a SoundTraxx sound decoder, to my ears they sound pretty good and the locomotive has nice slow speed performance. It's my understanding the SoundTraxx sound decoders use digitized sound, so the quality is only limited by the speaker. Of course no sound decoder on the market will ever come close to the prototype, but that has more to do with the speaker. I'll also admit I would not want a sound decoder that was as loud as the prototype. The ringing in my ears from the prototype is the answer to that question. I guess I'm old enough to remember the bad old days of Bachmann locomotives, with slot car motors and a complete lack of detail. In my eyes the company has done a complete one eighty and I'm enjoying their current products.
Manufacturers in all lines of business often make the mistake of assuming that the next customer down the supply chain (the intermediate distributor) is the end customer (the retail buyer). If Bachmann only offers a DCC+sound version of a loco, that's what the distributor will buy. If that configuration was what everyone wanted, you'd see them sold out, not being heavily discounted. As far as minimizing inventory of different configurations, we can reintroduce my previous suggestion of selling decorated bodyshells and chassis/mechanisms separately. Buy the shell in your choice of roadname and a matching chassis in either DC-only, DCC or DCC+sound version. No need to stock each roadname with 2 or 3 versions of chassis. I've seen Proto 2000 HO locos with the shell packaged separately from the chassis within the same box, so is it that much of a stretch to sell the two pieces in separate boxes, with some slight amount of assembly required?
So with three versions of chassis that a vender must carry in inventory you have now added the body shell. How many roadnames will that entail. That's a separate inventory item for each one. The problem is not solved, just intensified.
I don'think it is correct that manufacturers always make what the public wants. There seems to be a trend in "marketing" that tries to get the customer to buy MORE than he wants, by not selling just what he wants, separately. That "justifies" a higher price and higher profits. Whether that is at-play in N scale model railroading marketing is perhaps not clear, but it IS an issue in other markets.
Not at all. The number of roadnames/paint schemes doesn't matter (as long as it's >1) . Suppose that a loco is offered in a dozen different roadnames. That's 12 shells to stock. Matching chassis in either DC-only, DCC or DCC+sound version is an additional 3 items. So a total of 15 distinct items. If you had to inventory the shells for all 12 roadnames factory pre-installed onto a chassis in one of 3 different versions, then you'd have to stock 36 different items.
No, that does not sound logic. With 36 engines, he sells 36 engines. In your alternative option, he sells only 3 complete engines, and has 9 shells left in inventory. To sell those 9 shells, he needs 9 more chassises. At the end, he still has not sold more than 12 engines. The only hope for him is that he sells more shells than chassises, but I don't think that that will happen. He needs to have enough chassises and shells to give the customer the choice of buying the combination he wants: 12 DC, 12 DCC, 12 DCC+sound en 36 shells. So, a more complicated inventory.
Again, no. It's not about the number of locos sold, it's about reducing the total number of unique items that need to be produced and inventoried. Per the conventional completely factory-assembled method, if there are X different roadnames/roadnumbers/paint-schemes offered and 3 versions of chassis available, then there is a total of 3X unique items. If you use the separate shell and chassis approach, then there are only X+3 unique items.
Well, it is about the number of locos sold, including the costs of packaging and transportation as well as inventory and storage space, which all go into determining costs and profits. The real issue is whether the greater space and inventory requirements for having the shells seperate from the mechanisms would be off-set by increasing sales, and whether the cost sunk into slow movers would be diminished. Clearly, it is better to have an empty shell sitting on the store shelf than one filled with an expensive mechanism. So, if the mechansims sell well, the highest cost component could be moved through FASTER if somebody could buy one of those whereever available, even if the shell he wants is not at the same store, because he can shop for the desired shell elsewhere. So, although a store might get stuck with some shells that did not sell, the losses would be minimized. But, if the shells are not too expensive, they might actually sell pretty well to people who would be willing to buy shells to kit-bash or just repaint, but would not be willing to buy whole engines for that purpose.
No, it's entirely independent of the number of locos sold. The real issue is about having fewer permutations (as in none) of shell and chassis for which to plan. You do need to estimate the overall mix of DC-only vs. DCC vs. DCC+sound chassis to build, but you don't have to predict exactly which version of the chassis ought to go under which specific roadname shell. The customer picks a shell from column A and a chassis from column B, so to speak. Of course, if the manufacturer employs the pre-order method and builds strictly to those orders, then it's a moot point.
While I don't agree with Point353's business math, I do think he has an interesting strategy. IF hobby shops had an array of mechanisms and shells, and better, if those mechanisms were easily transformed from DC to DCC to DCC with sound, and those were mostly IN STOCK most of the time, I think that could be a big shot-in-the-arm for the hobby. It would help get us back to the days when a person could walk into a LHS and get what he wanted. Assuming that the assembly of a chasis to a mechanism was pretty trivial, a LHS should have not trouble putting them together for the neophite, probably for a small fee, while letting the more experienced DIY.
