shayfan84325 wrote:I've regeared a number of my brass locos using NWSL gearboxes. I do have their gear puller, but I chose it because it was available cheap at a swap meet. As a tool I'd give it a C+ (the little V plate is often too thick to fit where I want it to, and it seems to require 3 hands to operate it easily (also because of the V plate). I use my modeler's vise and a block of wood with a hole in it instead of the sensi-press, but most of the time the NWSL shaft is enough smaller than the worm hole that it slips on easily with no tools. A dab of epoxy keeps the worm in place. I made my own quartering fixture out of brass shapes and wood. Does the trick fine. Did you notice in the article that the author didn't use the Quarterer either?I like NWSL as much as anyone, but this article made me think of the way various manufacturers pay to have their products used in movies. I liked the article, but I wonder about the exclusive use of NWSL products, with no mention of alternatives. In the '70s MR frequently gave us articles about making jigs and tools, now they tend to tell us where to buy them - just one difference I've noted over the years.Sure, MR had our interests in mind, but I have to believe they were catering to a supplier, too.-Phil
I've regeared a number of my brass locos using NWSL gearboxes. I do have their gear puller, but I chose it because it was available cheap at a swap meet. As a tool I'd give it a C+ (the little V plate is often too thick to fit where I want it to, and it seems to require 3 hands to operate it easily (also because of the V plate). I use my modeler's vise and a block of wood with a hole in it instead of the sensi-press, but most of the time the NWSL shaft is enough smaller than the worm hole that it slips on easily with no tools. A dab of epoxy keeps the worm in place. I made my own quartering fixture out of brass shapes and wood. Does the trick fine. Did you notice in the article that the author didn't use the Quarterer either?
I like NWSL as much as anyone, but this article made me think of the way various manufacturers pay to have their products used in movies. I liked the article, but I wonder about the exclusive use of NWSL products, with no mention of alternatives. In the '70s MR frequently gave us articles about making jigs and tools, now they tend to tell us where to buy them - just one difference I've noted over the years.
Sure, MR had our interests in mind, but I have to believe they were catering to a supplier, too.
-Phil
I too have noticed this current trend in Model Railroader pushing specific products in it's articles without suggesting the many alternative (RE: much cheaper and usually just as effective) ways of accomplishing the task at hand. Although most of us seasoned modelers can read between the lines, I believe this practice is ONE of the many factors that contributes to the high cost of model railroading. There are many alternatives to a lot of those costly products. The earlier issues included many articles and sidebars about making your own jigs (VERY cheap and easy to do) and tips on the ingenious use of common tools, glues, paints, weathering supplies, and other common materials. I realize that the advertisers help keep the magazine afloat but being a long time reader of MR, this practice seems more and more like an informercial.
I too have used NWSL products in the past in particular the True Sander and The Chopper. I'd give both of them a D+. For what they charge, they should use metal parts in place of the flimsy plastic that easily breaks rendering the device useless. I ended up making my own chopper and sander after the NWSL produsts I had broke.
Regarding the cost of decoders, I wouldn't mind if they were a little forgiving and/or designed to be brass loco friendly. All of my locomotives are brass, so I'm nervous that I'll miss somethig and some part of the shell will touch something it shouldn't and I'll fry the little $15 unit. When I re-gear and re-motor these locos, I often have to track down short circuits that only occur after I put the lid on (the chassis runs fine). Based on that track record, I figure I'll have to buy 15 decoders to get it right on 10 locomotives - makes the price a little steeper. The other thing about decoders: you don't save money buying them on ebay. They end up selling for retail, anyway.
Much of what I've learned about model railroading has been by trial and error. Fortunately, most DC stuff is pretty forgiving. DCC worries me as having an expensive learning curve, especially for us brass runners.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
shayfan84325 wrote: BTW, I am working up to converting to DCC. The prices there bug me a bit. The systems seem to be fairly priced, but the decoders seem a little steep. I love the way it works, so I think I'll just have to squeeze my butt muscles and take the leap. -Phil
Phil,
As pointed out by Joe Fugate, you can get decoders for engines at about $15-16 each if you buy certain ones in quantities of up to 10. ie, for about $150 or so you can get 10 decoders and that is a good step toward getting loco's set up and working on a layout. The cost of DCC is alot less than 10-15 years ago. So it can be fairly modest cost. There is some start up costs getting the system - but for between $150 and 300 (depending on the system) you can get set up and then out fit loco's. That might blow most of one years budget for some people but then you are off and running.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
shayfan84325 wrote:...I too have wondered about Model Railroader and its focus. I appreciated the recent article about updating a brass loco drive train, but every tool and product in the article came from one manufacturer - sort of like an infomercial. I wonder about the economic forces that drive this sort of publishing. It was good information, but it's easy to see that the true allegence of our publisher is to its advertisers and we readers are just along for the ride.
I too have wondered about Model Railroader and its focus. I appreciated the recent article about updating a brass loco drive train, but every tool and product in the article came from one manufacturer - sort of like an infomercial. I wonder about the economic forces that drive this sort of publishing. It was good information, but it's easy to see that the true allegence of our publisher is to its advertisers and we readers are just along for the ride.
Above bold emphasis mine.
Phil;
This, I believe, has nothing to do with an infomercial nor true allegence to the advertiser. It simply has to do with the fact that this is the only single supply source that can supply the tools necessary to do a proper job. Micromark doesn't appear to carry anything necessary. I'm not saying they don't, I just didn't see it in their lastest catalog, or online. Mascot does have a gear puller, but how robust it is, I don't know. I do know of one other quarterer available on the market, but I just can't remember the name of the company, or the quality of the tool at present, (must be my halfz-heimers kicking in!) In the past, and definitely now, requartering a steamers drivers, as well as regearing and remotoring one was considered by those who haven't tried it as something "magical", that could only be done in custom, i.e. expensive repair shops or by magicians using special enchantations and spells. With these tools, anyone with any degree of mechanical aptitude can do it and fairly easily too.
IMHO, the magazine was simply providing the best source for high quality, relatively inexpensive, specialty tools and a how to do the requarter, regear/remotor, of a drive. I use these same tools myself, and they do make it a real simple procedure.
CNJ831:
I just sent you a message.
Carey
Keep it between the Rails
Alabama Central Homepage
Nara member #128
NMRA &SER Life member
andrechapelon wrote: shayfan84325 wrote: Glad to. It probably doesn't belong here, so I'll post a notice when I've got it started on another thread.I designed them for N scale, but they scale up very nicely. I figure the materials cost to be about a dime each, and I can make 4-6 in an afternoon.-PhilI'd be interested, too. Sounds like they'd be better than the $29.95 (plus S&H) modified hacksaw blades someone else was going to hawk. .How about calling it "The Low Cost Of Model Railroading"?Andre
shayfan84325 wrote: Glad to. It probably doesn't belong here, so I'll post a notice when I've got it started on another thread.I designed them for N scale, but they scale up very nicely. I figure the materials cost to be about a dime each, and I can make 4-6 in an afternoon.-Phil
Glad to. It probably doesn't belong here, so I'll post a notice when I've got it started on another thread.
I designed them for N scale, but they scale up very nicely. I figure the materials cost to be about a dime each, and I can make 4-6 in an afternoon.
I'd be interested, too. Sounds like they'd be better than the $29.95 (plus S&H) modified hacksaw blades someone else was going to hawk. .
How about calling it "The Low Cost Of Model Railroading"?
Andre
"The end is near, I tells ya!"
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Shayfan, (Phil), would you be willing, perhaps in another thread, to talk us through your ground throws? Please?
-Crandell
Well said, Andre.
I think I'm a pretty good model railroader, and I spend much less than $500 a year. I really don't see what the issue is. That's less than $50/month. If I were to let go of my passionfor brass it would be less.
Sure, I build a lot of bits and pieces that others buy (ground throws, for example. I'm not cheap; I like mine better that the store-bought ones), and my layout is far from huge, but I love it. I have no plastic rolling stock or locos (as my wife says "you can't take the plastic out of plastic."). Each structure, rail car, and loco is either used brass (renovated), kit built from craftsman kits, or scratch built. Yes, it takes a lot of time, but model railroading is not a race. It seems to me the more time you're willing to spend, the less money you have to spend. It also gives you a lot more to say at meets and shows.
My advice to someone whose funds are tight is to piece together $40 and buy a Campbell's Scale Models kit on ebay. Then spend the next 2 months building it the best that you can, while you save more money for your next project. Set aside a dollar a day and you'll have fun model railroading.
I planned my layout to be built in stages, starting with a 4 X 8 foot piece. It''s a folded point to point with a semi-visible helix and two concentric curved trestles. If that sounds complicated, it is. I designed it to provide lots of challenges so that I would be kept busy. After 7 years, I'm ready to go to the next stage - it will include a scratch-built turntable driven by a hand crank. I'll spend less that $500 completing that chunk and I expect that it will take at least 2 years. From there, who knows?
All tolled, I think 7 years of model railroading has cost me less than $3500 (10 brass locomotives included), and I've had a ball. I really think it's a matter of how one approaches the hobby, not what our suppliers charge for their wares.
BTW, I am working up to converting to DCC. The prices there bug me a bit. The systems seem to be fairly priced, but the decoders seem a little steep. I love the way it works, so I think I'll just have to squeeze my butt muscles and take the leap.
If anyone wants to see pictures or my track plan, let me know.
Here's something for y'all to consider:
I recently was commisioned to do a model ship. I charged $3000, my usual rate for a ship of that size and scale. However, because some of the parts were unusualy time consuming to build, I ended up taking a little less than 500 hours, inluding time spent on research. Once you subtract cost of wood and some of the detail parts, that comes out to around $5 per hour. Just something for y'all to think about.
Oh by the way.
When manufacturing something for sale to the hobby, there comes a point where the manufacturer has to make a decision whether or not to make manufacturing for the hobby his/her day job. At that point, said individual or group of individuals has to start thinking in businesslike terms. If he/she doesn't, that business is going to fail rather rapidly. It's all very well to reminisce about the "good old days" when a considerable number of model manufacturers did their manufacturing as a supplement to their day jobs, but those days are long gone. If we were to return to that "golden age" of the 50's, there would be just about as much available as there was in the 50's.
Which is to say: Not all that much.
Dave, I would suggest that you take a look at the bios of the various old-time hobby suppliers, as well as the details of the hobby's history, to actually see what motivations were abroad rather than post an off the cuff remark. Far too many here have not the slightest idea of what went on in the hobby early on or, like our friend Andre, get it totally mixed up and incorrect every time they try to make some historical point.
Apparently, the sarcasm inherent in my crack about Gordon Varney escaped you. And how did I get it incorrect? Is it because I don't regard the pioneers of the hobby as gods and worship at their feet? It isn't that I don't regard them with respect, it's just that I refuse to mentally carve their likenesses in the finest of imaginary marble and then sacrifice equally imaginary goats to them.
The majority of today's HO hobby manufacturing is governed not by individuals but largely by corporations, few of whose board members have any traceable ties to actual model railroading. For them it is simply a dollars and cents proposition and they'd probably be just as happy making wiggets. "Buy It Today, or Lose Out" has become the sad prevailing marketing tactic and availability be damned. ......
You keep making these sweeping generalizations and then absolutely refuse to back your statements up with anything whatsoever. Walthers, Athearn and Atlas are three of the largest companies in the business. I don't doubt they are corporations, there are sound business reasons for incorporating. However, the corporations are privately held ones. Turns out the the Chairman of the Board of Atlas is the husband of the founder's daugher. http://www.atlastrainman.com/ (page down). And then there's this: http://forum.zealot.com/t102378/
I don't how many directors Walthers has, but here's one. No mention of any interest in model railroading, but the site wasn't about model railroading. http://www.strategicaccounts.org/public/about/board/hunter.asp . Of course, Phil Walthers is a direct descendant of William K. Walthers, so the line of succession as far as leading the company is intact there. Here's a blurb about Phil. http://www.wisbusiness.com/index.iml?Article=21272
A little more history: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=561174
Of the big 3 mentioned above, that leaves Athearn, purchased by Horizon Hobby in 2004. OK, I'll give you that there are no Athearn's still involved with the company. Let's see if I can find any directors for Horizon. Oh, here's one: http://www.ceefoundation.org/AboutUs.php . Page down to Ed Bachrach. He's one. Don't know if he's an MRR. Don't care either.
Here's what Horizon says about its history: http://www.horizonhobby.com/Horizon/HorizonHistory.aspx . Perhaps a bit self-serving, but at least some names are named.
Oh, this is interesting: http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/careers-629134-Horizon_Hobby
It appears Horizon's revenues are about $49.5 million, only a portion of it coming from Athearn I would guess from this: http://www.horizonhobby.com/Horizon/HorizonBrands.aspx
Intermountain's there.
It's kinda tough looking up Bachmann Industries as there is a gas turbine manufacturer by the same name. Besides, the Bachmann we know is owned by Kader Industrial Company Limited in Hong Kong. http://www.kader.com.hk/ . Can't really track any board member down without a lot more research than I'm willing to do. Sorry 'bout that. At least we know that H. Lee Riley http://www.modelrailroadnews.com/pages/edSept04.html is VP Product Development for Bachmann. Perhaps not a BOD member, but a fairly highly placed executive.
But that's me. Rather than make sweeping and unsupported generalizations, at least I try to do some actual research. One thing's clear, though. For both Walthers and Atlas, there's a clear line of succession from the founders. And they're a couple of the big ones.
This is also reflected in many of the more recent smaller suppliers. Once they get a real foothold, they start progressively raising their prices until they out distance the average hobbyist that made them a success in the first place.
[sarcasm]
IOW, once they get a foothold, they do everything in their power to put themselves in a position where their business collapses. To quote Jon Lovitz, "That's the ticket". What a business plan. Wish I'd thought of it.
[/sarcasm]
Once again, the sweeping and unsupported generalization.
Just as Lionel did, our scale hobby is progressing toward becoming a high priced collectors field. The initiation of WGH, alone, clearly reflects the manufacturers' realization and worry that they need further clientel with deep pockets, even though so many naive hobbyists don't want to recognize it. The commercial side of model railroading has become all about maximizing profit as quickly as possible.
To paraphrase the late Clara Peller, WHERE'S THE PROOF? Come on, CNJ, you make the statements, now back them up.
Naive hobbyists? He must mean me and probably Joe Fugate, among others. IOW, those of us who don't look backward through rose tinted glasses to that fabulous golden age of the Fifties.
Shoot. I grew up in the 50's. I can remember Doo-Wop like it was yesterday. When it comes to the hobby, though, I must have lived in a different 50's.
Be glad that we can still buy model railroad kits of almost anything imaginable. My other hobby is radio-control model airplanes, and kits are quickly dwindling almost into extinction.Their is a new market called "ARF's almost ready to fly, just like ready to roll model railroad stock.So guys like me who love to build and creat with our own hands , are finding sources starting to dry up.Some of us scartch build from plans.But ARF's allow people more time to fly, and less time building.
On the other hand we MRR's can buy a kit, and do anyhting we wish with it. Guys who buy RTR might want to spend more time running trains and less at the workbench.
Then there's the "already built" buildings and scenery items, basically the same theme there. The hobby business is NOT a GET RICH QUICK deal!!!I had an offer to buy a LHS, and I did a lot of reasearch into it. A quick glance might make it look favorable, but looking deeper into it ,it didn't look all that great, and there is ALWAYS the scenario WHAT IF--and this covers a lot of ground.
What if the economy goes south, what if we have a fire, what if someone breaks in and vandlalizes the shop, what if the furnace goes bad, what if the air conditiong goes bad, what if a car runs off the street and crashes into the store, what if, what if, what if.
It also requires a lot of time to keep a business like this going.The price of energy keeps going up, what if someone has to drive a long way to get to you, will they take into consideration the cost of gas, etc to get to you?What if the weather gets bad, many people will stay home, less customers for the LHS that day.It is a business with a LOT of RISK ATTACHED!!!
If I enjoy the hobby which I do, I take Joe Fugates views on it also!I have to develop some character and be a little more picky in my purchasing decisions.WOW-IMAGINE THAT!!!
TheK4Kid
My guess is that Atlas is thinking of the "average Joe modeler" in tems of us being portion of the market that is not being served and not being tapped to the extent it could be. If their market research shows that there are a bunch of us who will buy less expensive and slightly less detailed models if they are available, then a manufacturer will create something to satisfy that portion of the market. If there wasn't money to be made, they likely would not make the product. It may well be an example of how we can influence our suppliers by the purchases we make/don't make.
CNJ,
I imagine that you'd lump Atlas into this group of "corporate, profit-hungry" manufacturers, but in fairness to them what about their new Trainman line of models? Not everything out there is high-priced, limited-run exclusive product - I can pick up a new TM car with metal wheels, Accumate knuckle couplers and in good, accurate paint and decorating for less than ten bucks a pop.
I think the fine folks at Atlas deserve credit and a tip of the hat in addressing the needs of the average Joe modeler.
D.M. Mitzel
Good point, Paul. I read every MR cover to cover (as well as Narrow Gauge and Short Like Gazette - a really good read for learning about non-RTR approaches to the hobby). Very little of what I read in MR has immediate relivance for me, but I feel like it keeps me up to date on what's going on. It makes it easier to converse at train shows.
Guys, are we deviating too far from the original topic?
Dave Vollmer wrote: CNJ831 wrote:Sad but very true and the exact opposite state of the affairs from a generation and more ago, when spreading model railroading and helping/cartering to the craftsman hobbyist were the main objectives of most of the hobby's suppliers (including the magazines), many of whom operated on a shoestring just to be able to promote modeling a bit more widely.Now the "modern" way of doing business results in driving many longterm modelers from the hobby. Yup, one more nail...CNJ831 Okay, flag on the play...!To suggest that suppliers didn't worry about making money in the past is silly. They had to earn some kind of cash or they'd be eating out of the trash. That they did what they did for the love of the hobby is probably true in most cases, but probably not all.To suggest that current suppliers are only in it for the money is equally silly. Model trains are not Big Oil. Many manufacturers even today are still hobbyists and want to promote the hobby.
CNJ831 wrote:Sad but very true and the exact opposite state of the affairs from a generation and more ago, when spreading model railroading and helping/cartering to the craftsman hobbyist were the main objectives of most of the hobby's suppliers (including the magazines), many of whom operated on a shoestring just to be able to promote modeling a bit more widely.Now the "modern" way of doing business results in driving many longterm modelers from the hobby. Yup, one more nail...CNJ831
Sad but very true and the exact opposite state of the affairs from a generation and more ago, when spreading model railroading and helping/cartering to the craftsman hobbyist were the main objectives of most of the hobby's suppliers (including the magazines), many of whom operated on a shoestring just to be able to promote modeling a bit more widely.
Now the "modern" way of doing business results in driving many longterm modelers from the hobby. Yup, one more nail...
CNJ831
Okay, flag on the play...!
To suggest that suppliers didn't worry about making money in the past is silly. They had to earn some kind of cash or they'd be eating out of the trash. That they did what they did for the love of the hobby is probably true in most cases, but probably not all.
To suggest that current suppliers are only in it for the money is equally silly. Model trains are not Big Oil. Many manufacturers even today are still hobbyists and want to promote the hobby.
Put as succinctly as I can, most of the early manufacturers were actually modelers first and got into manufacturing in an attempt to produce items of interest and affordability for the average hobbyist, as well as with hopes of spreading the hobby (and they did). Many did so as a side-line business from their garage or basement, out of love for the hobby, not as a life or death financial proposition. Few were in it for the money, because their really wasn't any. Even the larger companies had a similar outlook. For example, had it not been for Irv Athearn's longevity in his company, locomotive prices would have gotten out of control much sooner than they did.
The majority of today's HO hobby manufacturing is governed not by individuals but largely by corporations, few of whose board members have any traceable ties to actual model railroading. For them it is simply a dollars and cents proposition and they'd probably be just as happy making wiggets. "Buy It Today, or Lose Out" has become the sad prevailing marketing tactic and availability be damned. This is also reflected in many of the more recent smaller suppliers. Once they get a real foothold, they start progressively raising their prices until they out distance the average hobbyist that made them a success in the first place.
Now I realize that folks on this forum just hate to hear this and will attempt to denying it's the truth in every fashion possible. But what is really necessary for so many here is to pull one's head out of the sand and for the first time actually look up and understand where the hobby came from, how it has evolved and where it's going - something I've been doing seriously for the past 30+ years.
Now, I suppose, once my post gets at least a few of the usual inane replies, selector can have pleasure of locking this thread. Ah, well.
andrechapelon wrote:... The article was a good one and I enjoyed reading it. As a matter of fact, the only reason I bought RMC for those two months was the 2-8-0 article. However, I read the article more for entertainment than for information. Andre
...
The article was a good one and I enjoyed reading it. As a matter of fact, the only reason I bought RMC for those two months was the 2-8-0 article. However, I read the article more for entertainment than for information.
I think that's a good point. Many articles in MR and RMC as well as other model railroad magazines I read for entertainment. It's interesting to see how someone did something or learning about something even if it's not my own area of modeling. The key is having a well written article. For example, I have really enjoyed the columns looking back at the early days of model railroading and toy trains even though I don't collect early model/toy trains.
Enjoy
Paul
I have to smile at the notion the hobby is all "ready to run" or non-craftsman stuff, when the epitome in the hobby right now is precise prototype modeling.
Smile? I can here the guffaws all the way down here in Central California.
Since when can you go get a precise ready-to-run prototype model of a 1952 Clinchfield caboose, correct down to every significant prototype detail? If the epitome in the hobby was ready-to-run everything, then the hobby press would be full of "generic railroad" articles.
Just the opposite is true. To do proper detailed level prototype modeling, you need to scratchbuild or kitbash more things than ever.
I think what's really happening is people are buying as much ready-made stuff that's "close" to their prototype as possible, then using the time they save to scratchbuild or kitbash the precise prototype models they need. That's certainly what I'm doing and most of the modelers in my circle are doing the same thing.
You won't find many of these articles in magazines like MR because how many people want an article about building a 1952 Clinchfield caboose? Not very darn many people, that's who. The editors tend to reject niche articles because they don't reach a very large audience.
What? You mean there aren't thousands of modelers just dying to have a Clinchfield caboose circa 1952? Well, I guess I can understand that, but there's gotta be thousands of model railroaders just dying for an article on scratchbuilding a Maine Central C-3b 4-6-2 or a Santa Fe "Bull Moose" 4-4-2.
As a result, the hobby press articles are under-representing the actual prototype based scratchbuilding and serious detailed kitbashing going on.
Scratchbuilding is far from dead, I believe. It's just that the big guys like MR don't want the articles because they are too niche specific for their readers. .
You mean like Tom Dill's two parter on bashing SP's ex Cotton Belt 2-8-0's that appeared in RMC? Personally, I liked reading the article, but when push comes to shove, the article really didn't do me any good. The engines didn't appear until 1956 and they didn't last too long. They never appeared on the Monterey branch, which was dieselized by that time. There was only one specific year where they strutted and fretted their way across the stage for few months and were heard no more.
And let's face it, Joe, you model SP in the 80's. The 2-8-0 article didn't do you a fat lot of good, either. Even for strictly SP modelers, how many are going to duplicate Tom Dills efforts? Certainly, the post-1956 crowd won't. Those of us who prefer our SP prior to the dieselization of the "Lark" and the "Daylight" won't. Then there's the question of how an article on bashing a specific locomotive series helps the guy who has no interest in the SP whatsoever. I suppose that someone who is a steam era Cotton Belt modeler might benefit, but how many are those?
The research necessary to kitbash or scratchbuild a specific item has to be up to the individual doing it. The amount of information out there is phenomenal and no general interest publication could hope to provide information that specific and retain the interest of the vast bulk of their readers. There's just too much out there and there are too many modelers out there who are "specialists" in some railroad during some era (usually not my railroad nor my era) for me, or anyone else, reasonably to expect MR to accomodate us all.
EDIT: Note: I'm not trashing Tom Dill nor RMC. Quite the contrary. The article was a good one and I enjoyed reading it. As a matter of fact, the only reason I bought RMC for those two months was the 2-8-0 article. However, I read the article more for entertainment than for information.
Getting back to the original statement, skiing isn't cheap and neither is golf. Decent cameras cost as much or more than most locos and traveling to exotic places to SCUBA dive ain't cheap either. And the last I heard, if you're into Cuda's and other cars, a printing press for money is a good idea. And boats? A hole in the water to pour money into.
So I suppose it's all relative.
Tilden
Business has to be their priority. Knowing that, we can influence what they bring us and even how much it costs.
Letter from PCM (imaginary of course, but what the hey):
Dear Mr. Chapelon,
With reference to your letter of November 13th last, asking us to make a Southern Pacific P-6, we must regretfully decline to do so at this time. While the Southern Pacific is a very popular railroad, our research indicates that there were only 3 P-6's left on the Pacific lines after transfer of the other 3 to the T&NO for rebuilding to P-14's for use on the "Sunbeam" in the late 1930's. Furthermore, we have polled the members of the SPH&TS to find out which SP locomotives are most desired by SP modelers. The result of our poll indicates that the P-6 is the least desired model. As a matter of fact, only you and one other person indicated an interest in the P-6 and the other person indicated that it was his 3rd choice behind a GS-8 and a T-32.
Then there's the matter of price. Even if the P-6 were potentially a "hot" item, there is no way we can manufacture and sell it for $50 MSRP including sound and DCC. The thinking of our manufacturing staff is that we would have to sell the locomotive in the $325-$350 range and only then if we can successfully sell at least 1,000 units in the first production run. However, if you are really interested in a P-6 and can guarantee us the sale of 1,000 units, we will be glad to give you the distributors discount and will sell those 1,000 units to you at a price of $225/per unit delivered on the dock in Long Beach, CA. We ask that you either forward us a letter of credit for $225,000 or a cashier's check for the same amount. It will take us about 2 years to get the items produced as we have to contact the California State Railroad Museum (among others) to see if we can obtain erection drawings for the locomotives in question.
Respectfully,
La Toya Trein
VP Marketing
Scratchbuilding is far from dead, I believe. It's just that the big guys like MR don't want the articles because they are too niche specific for their readers.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Supply and demand being what they are, if the model railroading manufacturers are actually gouging us modelers, then it seems to me some clever business savvy modeler should just come along, charge less, and take over the market.
But that doesn't seem to be happening, so I doubt that the manufacturers are lining their pockets at our expense. People are paying ever larger amounts for ready-made modeling -- just witness the crazy prices for nicely weathered rolling stock on eBay. Somebody out there has the money, and the manufacturers seem to be tapping into that niche market and surviving pretty well. But I don't think anyone's getting rich in the hobby business.
So if the manufacturers are able to sell their wares at the prices they're getting, why not? I might wish things were cheaper, but now I have to be more selective about my hobby -- and that's not all bad. Gee, now I have to learn some self discipline ... not only is the hobby honing my hand-eye coordination, now it's refining my character as well!
Dave Vollmer wrote: CNJ831 wrote:Sad but very true and the exact opposite state of the affairs from a generation and more ago, when spreading model railroading and helping/cartering to the craftsman hobbyist were the main objectives of most of the hobby's suppliers (including the magazines), many of whom operated on a shoestring just to be able to promote modeling a bit more widely.Now the "modern" way of doing business results in driving many longterm modelers from the hobby. Yup, one more nail...CNJ831 Okay, flag on the play...!To suggest that suppliers didn't worry about making money in the past is silly. They had to earn some kind of cash or they'd be eating out of the trash. That they did what they did for the love of the hobby is probably true in most cases, but probably not all.To suggest that current suppliers are only in it for the money is equally silly. Model trains are not Big Oil. Many manufacturers even today are still hobbyists and want to promote the hobby.Don't know about HO, but here in N scale land we have a lot of shoestring manufacturers alive and well. Like Hell Gate Models, Alkem Scale Models (who also does HO), Fine N Scale Models (I've spoken to their one and only proprietor via telephone; he's a hobbyist first), TrainCat (doing brass bridges), and so on...The current model railroading manufacturers are NOT giant faceless companies hungry for your dollars and rolling in profits. They have to make money to stay in business (duh, even I know that and I'm just a dumb GI). Guys like Cory Rothlesburger at Atlas are designing new products... Guess what? He's not some CEO somewhere. He's younger than I am and a model railroader. I'm thinking he's not rolling in profits.CNJ, I respect you as an elder, as a long time model railroader, and a very talented man. But I think you're unfairly characterizing today's manufacturers and looking a tad too wistfully at the past.
Don't know about HO, but here in N scale land we have a lot of shoestring manufacturers alive and well. Like Hell Gate Models, Alkem Scale Models (who also does HO), Fine N Scale Models (I've spoken to their one and only proprietor via telephone; he's a hobbyist first), TrainCat (doing brass bridges), and so on...
The current model railroading manufacturers are NOT giant faceless companies hungry for your dollars and rolling in profits. They have to make money to stay in business (duh, even I know that and I'm just a dumb GI). Guys like Cory Rothlesburger at Atlas are designing new products... Guess what? He's not some CEO somewhere. He's younger than I am and a model railroader. I'm thinking he's not rolling in profits.
CNJ, I respect you as an elder, as a long time model railroader, and a very talented man. But I think you're unfairly characterizing today's manufacturers and looking a tad too wistfully at the past.
There are many shoestring, proprietary companies that serve the minority scales. Most of them are ran by modelers and are a family run business. Besides trying to make a profit, they truly love the hobby and want to help the hobbiests attain their goals. Since many of these cottage industries don't deal with Walthers, LHSs, or other middlemen and sell directly to the public, their prices are low and they treat their customers as if they know them personally. Being in Large Scale I rarely have need of the many pricey dedicated model railroad products or have to deal with mainstrean suppliers such as Walthers or most LHSs. Luckily, there are many low cost substitutes available especially in the larger scales. There are many craftsman kits (limited run types) and high-end (non-brass) locos in HO that actually cost more than some Large Scale locos or products and G scale supplies are always heavily discounted by online shops.
I may have been a little forceful in my comments, and I do believe that our suppliers think about us, but I have no doubt that their high level meeings are like any company's: How's the bottom line; are sales up/down; what is the forecast; how can we minimize our loss on that thing that didn't sell? Business has to be their priority. Knowing that, we can influence what they bring us and even how much it costs.
This thread is full of gripes about the way model railroading is headed and how much it costs, but how many of you tell your suppliers about your issues? Make your voice heard, and don't settle for products that are unsatisfactory or prices that are too high; demand better. Complaining never gets much in the way of results, actions do. As long as we have the money and there are suppliers who want us to use it to buy their product, we have the power to make our hobby take any path we choose.
Dave, there are 3 articles of CNJ's faith you absolutely must not question.
1. The hobby is dying.
2. The 50's were the Golden Age of model railroading. I honestly have no idea why anyone who actually lived in the 50's would think this (I remember the 50's fondly, but apparently when I ordered my bifocals, the optician left out the rose tint so I can't see the golden glow).
3. Back then, everybody did it for the love of the hobby and gave unstintingly of themselves regardless of economic impact. Well, maybe except for Gordon Varney, who charged $57.50 for the Super Pacific kit in 1950 (about $500 today). Charged extra for the tender, too. With the $22 "Casey Jones" (about $190 today) in 1950, at least you got the tender. However, you had to drill the holes in the boiler for the handrail stanchions. Oh well, they were trying to make craftsmen out of everybody. If you can't drill a boiler for handrail stanchions, obviously you can't be a craftsman.
Don Gibson wrote: OUR HOBBY at one time was 'Building' your own, or Kits. Now it's 'Ready to Run'. Your choice.
OUR HOBBY at one time was 'Building' your own, or Kits. Now it's 'Ready to Run'. Your choice.
Don,
I agree that RTR is certainly a much stronger force than it was... But some of us still "roll our own." That will always be a part of this hobby as long as some people enjoy doing more than opening a box.
Keep in mind that by understanding that our suppliers will follow the money, all we have to do is buy the things we like and not buy the things we don't like. Our suppliers will follow our money and do whatever it takes to get us to buy their products. If you want Model Railroader to change, subscribe to a different magazine and tell them why you switched (keep in mind that Model Railroader is a product created with every intent to make a profit; it is not a club and we are not members; we are purchasers). Want more clout? Write their advertisers and tell them, too. Don't like RTR? Don't buy RTR. Like craftsman kits? Buy them.
Our hobby is what it is because we made it that way. Want it different? Make it different.