What resolution is needed?
Regarding mfgring of HO-scale locomotives, drive-train parts notwithstanding (for the most part)-- what would you estimate the "feature" resolution size would need to be in order to do a decent job in capturing the typical locomotive details sufficiently to be on par with, say proto 2000? (i.e. Pumps, piping, rivets, etc) 0.1 inch? 0.01? 0.001? more? less?
jwhittenWhat resolution is needed? Regarding mfgring of HO-scale locomotives, drive-train parts notwithstanding (for the most part)-- what would you estimate the "feature" resolution size would need to be in order to do a decent job in capturing the typical locomotive details sufficiently to be on par with, say proto 2000? (i.e. Pumps, piping, rivets, etc) 0.1 inch? 0.01? 0.001? more? less?
And a follow-up question...
In addition to feature resolution size... what do you think the thickness of the "thinnest" (standard) component should be (not counting special parts)-- meaning the "shell" or "primary" add-on details...
Another follow-up question...
Not counting motor and electric or electronic components, what are all the various materials (be specific) used in a typical HO-scale locomotive?
(These are my guesses-- I'm hoping other folks can either verify my guesses and/or add their own)
-- Polystyrene plastic (body shell, common detail parts)
-- Delrin plastic (whatever that is-- Nylon?? Handrails, bendy/breaky parts)
-- Nickel-Silver (tires)
-- "Pot Metal" (Zinc alloys) ?? (chassis, frame, ballast weighting)
-- Steel ?? (chassis, frame, side rods & valve gear, handrails)
Is any of the list above accurate? (I know some items are)
What else is used?
andrechapelonThere's no reason why Bowser should redo the Stewart molds and no one is suggesting that. The addition of detail and sound certainly makes them competitive. Nonetheless it is ironic that there are 4 major manufacturers of EMD F units but no one apparently willing to take the risk to create a market for something new rather than trying to grab market share from the other guy. We have Big Boys coming out the wazoo, but we can't get Harriman Pacifics to save our lives.
Something here that makes for some chin stroking on my part. I've had been mucking around with a couple of guys recently rebuilding a former A/G class 'gasser' drag car. This is definitely a low buck operation here--yet we look at what was done in the 1950's in terms of drag cars when the NHRA was first established and we see a "what would happen if---" thing going. Nowadays the attitude appears to generally be ----"But it costs $$$!!!"
I now look at what transpired recently in our hobby and compare that with what occured in the Great Depression and I'm going ---"what happened to the idea of doing a market?" Now I hear people going "But it costs $$$$!!!"
Maybe what is going on here is the same as all over the place. The problem now is that we can no longer see past the billfold. Most of what we are going from is from the cost of doing 'X' rather than from the thing itself. Most production still has to be done. The $$$$ is not doing it by itself. This cost factor usually had to come after the thing was done. That was when a lot of the cost factoring was done. Now we place it in front-----does it become a barricade to keep us from doing things? It can become just that--- if one sees it in that light..
I've noticed that we do spend a lot of time talking about the $$$$ of the hobby--from the customers view. I'd like to see some of this reflected back on the $$$ of production now-----use those inflation calculators
I wonder what happened to the concept of "Investing in one's hobby"-----
Imagine "investing" in growing a market-------
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
What's needed to make a model?
Engineering. It's not about the accuracy of features to the .01 or .001 inch, because the compromises are actually much bigger than that. You can't get all features to that level of accuracy at 1/87.3 scale. I would say good models are a result of reasonable compromises that still allow the model to "look" like the real thing, but even the best, most expensive HO brass engines will not be entirely accurate in all dimensions. That--and with steam power--many items end up being scaled from old photos because drawings may be missing. Roads like DRGW trashed most of their drawings (out with the old, in with the new once Alfred Perlman got involved) so very little hard data remains. What few plan sheets remain allegedly cost $100 per sheet to have the library dig them out and make prints.
In HO they typically have to cheat a little bit on driver spacings to allow acceptable clearances so the models will run down the track. The resulting question becomes "which one driver do you want to see in the correct location?"--because the others will be wrong. Or in HO the drivers are undersized in order to keep the correct axle spacing.
MTH's GS4 Daylight has slightly undersized drivers for the 80" version, though they are closer to the GS6 size and may actually be correct for that version (I didn't disassemble to measure, but they appear to be within 1/32" of the correct size for the GS-6/GS-64 WP version).
MTH's 4-12-2 has 64" drivers when the prototype had 67". This was likely done partly to go around tighter curves, partly to have the correct height off the rail, etc. One magazine commented MTH's backhead was 1' too far back as compared to drawings, etc.--possibly to fit the motor in it.
Other materials:
Fiber or other insulation in motors and possibly some wheelsets, lots of brass (castings, etc.), bronze/graphite impregnated bearings that should never require additional lubricant (P2K and others use them, but apparently not all manufacturers as of yet)...
jwhittenDelrin plastic (whatever that is-- Nylon?? Handrails, bendy/breaky parts)
Delrin plastic (whatever that is-- Nylon?? Handrails, bendy/breaky parts)
Please, lose the Delrin, Celcon, and whatever for handrails and detail parts - styrene or brass are both better choices for detail parts, with lots already available from which to choose, and handrails are better done in music wire - scale thickness, holds paint, and stands up to handling.
Wayne
UP 4-12-2What's needed to make a model? Engineering. It's not about the accuracy of features to the .01 or .001 inch, because the compromises are actually much bigger than that. You can't get all features to that level of accuracy at 1/87.3 scale. I would say good models are a result of reasonable compromises that still allow the model to "look" like the real thing, but even the best, most expensive HO brass engines will not be entirely accurate in all dimensions. That--and with steam power--many items end up being scaled from old photos because drawings may be missing. Roads like DRGW trashed most of their drawings (out with the old, in with the new once Alfred Perlman got involved) so very little hard data remains. What few plan sheets remain allegedly cost $100 per sheet to have the library dig them out and make prints. In HO they typically have to cheat a little bit on driver spacings to allow acceptable clearances so the models will run down the track. The resulting question becomes "which one driver do you want to see in the correct location?"--because the others will be wrong. Or in HO the drivers are undersized in order to keep the correct axle spacing. MTH's GS4 Daylight has slightly undersized drivers for the 80" version, though they are closer to the GS6 size and may actually be correct for that version (I didn't disassemble to measure, but they appear to be within 1/32" of the correct size for the GS-6/GS-64 WP version). MTH's 4-12-2 has 64" drivers when the prototype had 67". This was likely done partly to go around tighter curves, partly to have the correct height off the rail, etc. One magazine commented MTH's backhead was 1' too far back as compared to drawings, etc.--possibly to fit the motor in it. Other materials: Fiber or other insulation in motors and possibly some wheelsets, lots of brass (castings, etc.), bronze/graphite impregnated bearings that should never require additional lubricant (P2K and others use them, but apparently not all manufacturers as of yet)...
Well, it is about resolution / accuracy, but not in the manner you're considering. I'm not thinking of transcribing measurements from the prototype to the model, rather I'm thinking of what level of granular resolution is required, from a raw standpoint, to produce a reasonable level of detail-- recognizable detail.
If you have a ball (sphere) for example. For one level of coarseness, it would appear to be a cube-- i.e. that would be its level of granularity. If you can create it with additional resolution, it would go from being a cube, to being a stepped-cube, to being an even finer stepped-cube approximating a spherical shape, etc-- to the point that it passes sufficiently as a sphere to the human eye-- i.e., some level of "feature" resolution / granularity.
What is the level required to do a decent job, say akin to a proto 2000? 0.1 inch? 0.01? 0.001? what?
doctorwaynejwhittenDelrin plastic (whatever that is-- Nylon?? Handrails, bendy/breaky parts) Please, lose the Delrin, Celcon, and whatever for handrails and detail parts - styrene or brass are both better choices for detail parts, with lots already available from which to choose, and handrails are better done in music wire - scale thickness, holds paint, and stands up to handling. Wayne
Man do I have to agree with you on that one. I have some locos that have *never ever* been opened and the handrails are all wavy and warped. They were stored in an inside storage shed ("U-store it" kinda place) for a few years-- but the rest of the locos are in fine shape. Just the handrails are wacked. Which is a little ironic when you think about it because they used that Delrin stuff to make the handrails more pliable and bendy and better able to withstand handling and rough conditions... go figger...
John
jwhitten--
OK, forgive my misunderstanding--but it's still not quite that simple. While I better understand where you are coming from now, let me share another real world example:
Bowser wanted the N-5C caboose to be absolutely as accurate as possible. So the die-maker did the rivets to correct scale size. The problem was as soon as paint was applied (and they had a very good painter in house) the rivets disappeared--I happened to walk in when the bosses were discussing the issue and saw the painted sample firsthand. Bowser sent the tooling back to be amended, at considerable cost and lost time, so that the rivets would show through the finished paint (yes the N-5C tooling did pay for itself).
I do not know what the minimum size is for features to be noticeable.
Perhaps someone else can enlighten us there.
Best Regards--
UP 4-12-2I do not know what the minimum size is for features to be noticeable
I'm not too sure but I might have something that is compareable. Try modelling nail holes in a building in HO---better yet--- in N scale. It ends up being a little caricaturish in appearance. When you look at a building watch what happens to the detail resolution the further away you get from that building. Nail holes will become harder to see the further away one goes.
I'm guessing the same applies to locomotives. That issue will show up.
UP 4-12-2jwhitten-- OK, forgive my misunderstanding--but it's still not quite that simple. While I better understand where you are coming from now, let me share another real world example: Bowser wanted the N-5C caboose to be absolutely as accurate as possible. So the die-maker did the rivets to correct scale size. The problem was as soon as paint was applied (and they had a very good painter in house) the rivets disappeared--I happened to walk in when the bosses were discussing the issue and saw the painted sample firsthand. Bowser sent the tooling back to be amended, at considerable cost and lost time, so that the rivets would show through the finished paint (yes the N-5C tooling did pay for itself). I do not know what the minimum size is for features to be noticeable. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us there. Best Regards-- John
That's a good point you're making. While I didn't think of it to include it in my example, I understand what you're saying. Also another similar thing to consider, if using molds and whatnot, is workpiece shrinkage. How much bigger (oversized) do you have to make the mold so that it shrinks down to the correct size when its finished. And the answer likely varies from one type of material to another.
One of the things I was primarily thinking about though was the possibility of using CAD/CAM/RAP resources to assist in the creation of molds and such. There are a number of advantages to that type of process, and some drawbacks.
One of the biggest questions is how few sub-assemblies can you get it all down to ? Each sub-assembly adds to the tooling cost overhead and the labor required for assembly. Even if you pass that along to the end-user / modeler, you still want to do your best to reduce it to the bare minimum required, and to make it as easy as possible. Otherwise what you gain in reduced labor you'll lose again in increased support.
blownout cylinderUP 4-12-2I do not know what the minimum size is for features to be noticeable I'm not too sure but I might have something that is compareable. Try modelling nail holes in a building in HO---better yet--- in N scale. It ends up being a little caricaturish in appearance. When you look at a building watch what happens to the detail resolution the further away you get from that building. Nail holes will become harder to see the further away one goes. I'm guessing the same applies to locomotives. That issue will show up.
Sure it is, but that's a subjective statement-- what's the number? 0.1 inch ? 0.01 ? 0.001 ???
What quantifiable resolution is required in the tooling in order to produce a result that is subjectively "good enough"? And which I am using "Proto 2000" as the subjective comparative reference of "good enough". BLI or Heritage or any of the other modern, highly-detailed models would also be suitable.
Something that might be of interest... I was looking up "plastics extrusion" on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastics_extrusion) and see that it is essentially a large "glue gun". The screw component down the center is a nice improvement and I presume does a good job of keeping things moving as well as regulates the flow.
jwhittenWhat quantifiable resolution is required in the tooling in order to produce a result that is subjectively "good enough"?
Look at something closer to 0.001".
One of the ironies of the situation is that two of the biggest names in the hobby were founded during the Great Depression, Walthers in 1932 and Kalmbach in 1934. Not really a good time to start a new business. OTOH, if you can't get a job with someone else, the only real alternative is to figure out a way to be successfully self-employed.
As for the customer's view and just to keep things interesting, when Mantua introduced the kit for the Reading I10sa 2-8-0 in 1937, it was priced at the equivalent of roughly $425 in today's money.
As for other issues (like the cost of distribution through distributors), this history of Bowser might be a cautionary tale, especially the table of comparative profitability about 1/2 way down. Then there's the issue of being overly optimistic about how many units you can sell, also covered.
http://www.railstop.com/History/Bowser/BowserHistory.asp
Excerpt from article about overly optimistic sales projections:
The survey indicated that Bowser could possibly sell as many as a thousand locomotives a month. Based on this information and the pressure from the jobbers, it was decided to sell using jobbers. This decision led to financial problems as sales never came close to the survey results or the jobber's estimates. Later Bill figured out that the survey was flawed. When asked for buying plans, people respond with what they want to buy rather than what they can afford to buy. Based on actual sales results, it appears that people wanted to buy about five times what they could actually afford.
Sounds like a case of "CAVEAT MANUFACTURER".
Andre
andrechapelonLater Bill figured out that the survey was flawed. When asked for buying plans, people respond with what they want to buy rather than what they can afford to buy. Based on actual sales results, it appears that people wanted to buy about five times what they could actually afford.
Boy, ain't that the quote... sounds to me like a whole bunch of people saying "Gee, I wish this stuff was cheaper so I could buy more!"
jwhitten andrechapelonLater Bill figured out that the survey was flawed. When asked for buying plans, people respond with what they want to buy rather than what they can afford to buy. Based on actual sales results, it appears that people wanted to buy about five times what they could actually afford. Boy, ain't that the quote... sounds to me like a whole bunch of people saying "Gee, I wish this stuff was cheaper so I could buy more!"
And if they paid us to take it off their hands, life would be paradise, wouldn't it?
One of the interesting tidbits in Jim Six's article in MRP 2010 is that at one point he had 300 engines. He sold a lot off to pay for DCC (and my guess is that's not all the sales paid for). From the article, he's reducing his roster down to 20 engines, 8 steam and 12 diesel. Given the size of his layout, that's a reasonable number and probably allows for some spares.
It's a lot easier and a lot less stressful to adjust your wants down to what you can afford than it is to increase your means to afford what you think you want. In all probability, increasing your means would also increase your wants.
It's nice to be able to afford a Mercedes. It's even nicer having no desire to own one or any other brand in the same price range.
andrechapelonIt's nice to be able to afford a Mercedes. It's even nicer having no desire to own one or any other brand in the same price range. Andre
Oh I don't know about that... earning a Mercedes would be pretty nice.... then I could sell it and buy more trains !!!
andrechapelon It's a lot easier and a lot less stressful to adjust your wants down to what you can afford than it is to increase your means to afford what you think you want. In all probability, increasing your means would also increase your wants.
I know what you mean though. I'm afraid I'm probably in that "way too many for my own good" category too...
andrechapelon Excerpt from article about overly optimistic sales projections: The survey indicated that Bowser could possibly sell as many as a thousand locomotives a month. Based on this information and the pressure from the jobbers, it was decided to sell using jobbers. This decision led to financial problems as sales never came close to the survey results or the jobber's estimates. Later Bill figured out that the survey was flawed. When asked for buying plans, people respond with what they want to buy rather than what they can afford to buy. Based on actual sales results, it appears that people wanted to buy about five times what they could actually afford.
I'd strongly recommend that article, too.
I'm looking at 300-500 units tops! Many people I've talked to do not even consider affordability to be an issue. "eh--use the credit cards to buy these things---" The smaller locomotive market is in no way that large.
This is why one needs to ask---"why do I want to do this?"
There has to be other reasons than "to make lotsa dough!"
Barry, if you think you can get rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice by manufacturing and selling model locomotives, do I have a deal for you. Okeefenokee Acres. Prime agricultural, residential and commercial acreage in the heart of beautiful downtown Florida. Seller is highly motivated to find a suc... er, I mean buyer who will appreciate the amazing economic opportunity this represents.
BTW, just WHY do you want to do this?
andrechapelonBTW, just WHY do you want to do this?
To have fun!!
Actually I like mucking about with stuff like this. To me it becomes part of my learning curve, the idea here is to see what can be done.---consider it an extension of curiousity,scratchbuilding and just plain ol' cussedness!!! lol!!
blownout cylinder andrechapelonBTW, just WHY do you want to do this? To have fun!! Actually I like mucking about with stuff like this. To me it becomes part of my learning curve, the idea here is to see what can be done.---consider it an extension of curiousity,scratchbuilding and just plain ol' cussedness!!! lol!!
That's the best reason I can think of for doing anything. If you can do what you love and make some money doing it, so much the better. Warren Buffett become a multi-billionaire not because he wanted to get filthy rich, but because he loved investing. Becoming filthy rich was a by-product.
I've got the filthy part down pat. The rich part needs a bit of work, however.
Barry, what i would like to see is a Camelback series, 0-6-0C, 2-8-0C etc. what you will need is prototype blueprints so that you will be able to scale them down properly.
an alternative and something that might be more cost effective would be to market, "after-market" kits so that we could kitbash say a Bachmann 2-8-0 into a 2-8-0 Camelback.
another thing , and i am not sure if this is viable but what about bio-plastics? i know they are made for gardening, can the same stuff be used to model a boiler? will it take and hold details? how thick can it be cast? if it works then the use of petroleum-based plastics can be reduced as well as associated costs and more farmers put to work on a renewable source. everyone wins.
i wish you the best of luck