andrechapelon I might have some sympathy if the complaint were about things that people actually need, things like food clothing and shelter, but the loudest complaints are always about wanna-haves not need-to-haves.
I might have some sympathy if the complaint were about things that people actually need, things like food clothing and shelter, but the loudest complaints are always about wanna-haves not need-to-haves.
Oh, there ARE complaints about the "need-to-haves"...just not on this forum as it would be
so Here on these forums, people talk about the "want-to-haves" of the hobby. It stands to reason that as the costs of "need-to-haves" go up and up, there is less and less money for the "want-to-haves", and the fewer sales there are of the "want-to-haves", the higher those prices of the "wnat-to-haves" go too to get the desired profit margins...
Any business, except maybe the basic need of food and shelter {leave out clothing as most of us already have way more than enough already} can price itself out of the market and go out of business, especially during times of economic distress. But Even Food markets, if not carefull, can over price themselves driving people to seek out food pantries and free soup kitchen dinners or soup lines like in the States in the 30's. And high rents or defaulted mortgages can drive people to live in their cars or tent cities on the outskirts of town.
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
megh.
Some of us should engage in this--then we could complain---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Z_DxU-3rQ&NR=1
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/
IRONROOSTER blownout cylinder: I guess there is going to be a fair bit of crabbiness about the cost of these things. The problem is in the handling of it. What i would like to see is a good old breakdown of what it costs to produce a locomotive--let us see-- 1) Material Costs--I suspect that a lot of the problem here is that material is not as readily available in China due to certain financial situations--hence the growing costs there 2) Labour Costs--keep going up due to the wage inflation going on in China. It is no longer possible to find the el cheapo labour there as much as it was likely possible to get... 3) Currency Exchange rates bouncing around all over the map--PLUS the ongoing currency exchange wars that are now breaking out in the Southeast Asian countries as elsewhere 4)Cultural/Socopolitical Costs--Regulations are now starting to take hold in China as well as elsewhere 5) Many companies that used to mfg in China are now looking elsewhere to outsource THEIR costs--which lead to more of the above Which all leads to doing more with less---or less with less--and going all coocoo in the bargain--- Don't forget R&D costs and tooling costs. Enjoy Paul
blownout cylinder: I guess there is going to be a fair bit of crabbiness about the cost of these things. The problem is in the handling of it. What i would like to see is a good old breakdown of what it costs to produce a locomotive--let us see-- 1) Material Costs--I suspect that a lot of the problem here is that material is not as readily available in China due to certain financial situations--hence the growing costs there 2) Labour Costs--keep going up due to the wage inflation going on in China. It is no longer possible to find the el cheapo labour there as much as it was likely possible to get... 3) Currency Exchange rates bouncing around all over the map--PLUS the ongoing currency exchange wars that are now breaking out in the Southeast Asian countries as elsewhere 4)Cultural/Socopolitical Costs--Regulations are now starting to take hold in China as well as elsewhere 5) Many companies that used to mfg in China are now looking elsewhere to outsource THEIR costs--which lead to more of the above Which all leads to doing more with less---or less with less--and going all coocoo in the bargain---
I guess there is going to be a fair bit of crabbiness about the cost of these things. The problem is in the handling of it. What i would like to see is a good old breakdown of what it costs to produce a locomotive--let us see--
1) Material Costs--I suspect that a lot of the problem here is that material is not as readily available in China due to certain financial situations--hence the growing costs there
2) Labour Costs--keep going up due to the wage inflation going on in China. It is no longer possible to find the el cheapo labour there as much as it was likely possible to get...
3) Currency Exchange rates bouncing around all over the map--PLUS the ongoing currency exchange wars that are now breaking out in the Southeast Asian countries as elsewhere
4)Cultural/Socopolitical Costs--Regulations are now starting to take hold in China as well as elsewhere
5) Many companies that used to mfg in China are now looking elsewhere to outsource THEIR costs--which lead to more of the above
Which all leads to doing more with less---or less with less--and going all coocoo in the bargain---
Don't forget R&D costs and tooling costs.
Enjoy
Paul
megh-
Subsets of 1) + 2)
@ Andre
Megh--can't stop them from kvetching--they just miss it more--
andrechapelon I might have some sympathy if the complaint were about things that people actually need, things like food clothing and shelter, but the loudest complaints are always about wanna-haves not need-to-haves. Andre
Andre
That's because the people who need to have can't afford a computer, internet connection, or the time to sit and complain about it. They're too busy foraging for food.
John
Andre,
very interesting table! When I started to read MR in the late 1960´s, most brass imports had a price tag of around $ 80 - $ 100, which converted to 400 Deutschmarks in those days - way out of reach for me! A Marklin German prototype Pacific was a little short of 100 Deutschmarks then, which was still out of reach. 40 years later, new brass locos sell for $ 1,500, which converts into about 1,090 Euros or a little over 2,100 Deutschmarks. This is "only" 5.25 times the price of 1968, still out of reach, but not as bad as the increase of 15 times purely in Dollar terms.
I agree that one does not need to buy model railroading stuff to sustain his/her life and that, for this reason, the development of pricing does not have that much of a relevance. But for us model railroaders it has become a part of our way of life - a part of our own individual "pursuit of happiness". If you are, like me, unable to pursue this hobby for financial reasons, boy, will you notice what you are missing!
I suppose it's inevitable that there's always going to be a wailing and gnashing of teeth about how incredibly expensive hobby products are today, so here's a quick that'll give you a quick reference for prices today vs. prices 50 years ago.
2010 1960
------------------------ ----------------------------------
$10 $1.36
$50 $6.78
$100 $13.55
$200 $27.10
$300 $40.65
$500 $67.75
Just for reference, I bought an Athearn boxcar kit in 1957 for $1.29, a PFM Santa Fe 2-8-0 would have set you back $39.50 in 1960 and the current list price for a Bachmann Spectrum DCC (no sound) equipped 4-4-0 is $300 ($40.65 in 1960 dollars). When PFM released a model of the N&W class A in late 1958 or so (IIRC), they were asking $94.50 for it ($697.38) and you still had to paint, decal and add couplers.
Still, as surely as night follows day, there's always going to be people who view themselves as victims of a vast conspiracy.
blownout cylinder I guess there is going to be a fair bit of crabbiness about the cost of these things. The problem is in the handling of it. What i would like to see is a good old breakdown of what it costs to produce a locomotive--let us see-- 1) Material Costs--I suspect that a lot of the problem here is that material is not as readily available in China due to certain financial situations--hence the growing costs there 2) Labour Costs--keep going up due to the wage inflation going on in China. It is no longer possible to find the el cheapo labour there as much as it was likely possible to get... 3) Currency Exchange rates bouncing around all over the map--PLUS the ongoing currency exchange wars that are now breaking out in the Southeast Asian countries as elsewhere 4)Cultural/Socopolitical Costs--Regulations are now starting to take hold in China as well as elsewhere 5) Many companies that used to mfg in China are now looking elsewhere to outsource THEIR costs--which lead to more of the above Which all leads to doing more with less---or less with less--and going all coocoo in the bargain---
cambus267At last someone was giving British modellers quality, however, the rub was the price in excess of $200-300 way above what was expected. I inquired as too why the high price to be informed by the rep "Its all about DCC". I found this a bit strange since unlike American model railroaders we dont have the space and we only run 1 or 2 locos at a time. I was then told that "That's what we have agreed with the Chinese. Every unit has to have DCC regardless".
So I think it is a big load of huzra and they are just saying that because they don't know what else to say, hoping gullible people will believe it.
What is missing from the hobby is the old Dollar Car series that MR ran many years ago. Maybe they could bring it back and call it the Five Dollar Car.
Actually, it would be more like the Eight Dollar Car adusted for inflation given that most of those articles were prior to 1956.
Interestingly enough, $8 is pretty close to what Athearn was charging for a large number of BB kits when they pulled the plug on them.
OTOH, Kadee charges nearly $7 for a pair of trucks, Even with a 20% discount, that would be about $5.60. Then you're going to need couplers (#5's @ $3.00 for 2 pair allowing for a 20% discount). Then there's decals and paint and we haven't yet touched on the raw materials for the car body and underframe. Styrene and/or basswood's not cheap.
Bachmann pretty much owns the biggest model train plastic plant in China. This same plant also produces for several other manufacturers.
About a year ago they were having problems securing the raw plastic pellet matrial used to manufacture the engine parts. As a result they had to pay more for the material.
Add to the fact that our dollar has sunken incredibly against the Yen, Pound, Yuan, and CN$ due to our mounting gov't debt, it means we have less buying power. (When the gov't issues free money...ie: tons of spending, it lessens the value of the US greenback in other countries eyes.) I blame both democrats and republicans for this. They are both guilty.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
jwhitten Sir Madog: So let´s enjoy the vast supply we have and also the chance to rant a little about pricing. (If you wanna know the truth, my real "rant" is that I wish Bachmann, P2K, or somebody, made some nice mid-size Pennsy locos with belpaire fireboxes that I could actually afford ) john
Sir Madog: So let´s enjoy the vast supply we have and also the chance to rant a little about pricing.
So let´s enjoy the vast supply we have and also the chance to rant a little about pricing.
(If you wanna know the truth, my real "rant" is that I wish Bachmann, P2K, or somebody, made some nice mid-size Pennsy locos with belpaire fireboxes that I could actually afford )
john
I follow you down this path!
A fundamental question is: Should the wealth of the world be allowed to be concentrated in the hands of the few?
But this leads to politics and I get enough of that on TV these days.
Sir Madog So let´s enjoy the vast supply we have and also the chance to rant a little about pricing.
John,
yes, there is a natural price for all goods and services - it is called market price. It is the price the market is willing to pay and the seller is willing to sell it for. It works for most products, but not for all - in both directions.
If you´d throw all HO scale locos into one big basket, locos costing $ 500 - 600 would have a hard time to compete with Atlas Trainman locos or the regular Bachmann line. So you have to segment the market and create extra demand - by choosing landmark models, limited runs, extra features, like DCC&sound, super-detailing - you name it. These things are just a tool to harvest seemingly better margins. Unfair? No, just normal practice, which finds its natural correction after a little while, when demand is slacking. It only turns to be unfair, when other issues than market economy mechanisms determine the price, be it taxes or be it state controlled exchange rates.
Even if the hobby gets more expensive, it is much better than not having any supplies available. Would you believe that in the days of the Soviet Union, there was only one company producing model trains in all of the eastern block states? It was Piko in Eastern Germany....
fwright I have never bought into the populist and/or socialist position that the rich are somehow undeserving of their money, and therefore it should be "redistributed" to those more deserving. Cheating or fraud occurs when I as a supplier fail to deliver what I have agreed to deliver. If I cannot deliver, I expect to try to make good my failure through a price adjustment (at the very least). At the same time, I expect you as a buyer to honor the price you agreed to pay without complaint unless my product actually falls short of what I agreed to deliver. Note that amount of mark-up or profit does not enter into these principles. Unless you are sharing in my risk in producing Dream Locomotive Co's latest model, then my profit or mark-up is none of your business. We either come to an agreement on price, and you buy the product, or you don't . If I misjudged in planning the model from a cost of production, quantity of production, or pricing point of view - I lose. You don't. Fred W
I have never bought into the populist and/or socialist position that the rich are somehow undeserving of their money, and therefore it should be "redistributed" to those more deserving.
Cheating or fraud occurs when I as a supplier fail to deliver what I have agreed to deliver. If I cannot deliver, I expect to try to make good my failure through a price adjustment (at the very least). At the same time, I expect you as a buyer to honor the price you agreed to pay without complaint unless my product actually falls short of what I agreed to deliver. Note that amount of mark-up or profit does not enter into these principles.
Unless you are sharing in my risk in producing Dream Locomotive Co's latest model, then my profit or mark-up is none of your business. We either come to an agreement on price, and you buy the product, or you don't . If I misjudged in planning the model from a cost of production, quantity of production, or pricing point of view - I lose. You don't.
Fred W
Fred, and Crandell (and anybody else :-)
Boy this is a tricky / touchy subject and it isn't easy to talk about any aspect of it in a vaccuum. Its all inter-related and the points made by all sides have validity to them. Economics is not a static, dusty topic, but rather it is alive and dynamic and exists as a sort of viewport into human business / transactional activity. Certainly there are economic principles that can be learned individually, but must be applied and adopted to the whole. When considering one and only one transaction, without the overhead and baggage of "everything else", it seems easy and simple. But in truth, its all inter-related, and the effects of an unknown (to you) actor in some faraway location may have a real and direct effect on some essential business transaction you have here and now.
For example the effects of a transaction made by the Chinese government, say to purchase all of the output of a particularly large copper mine in Australia for the next 99 years, may have a very real and profound effect on the cost of wire, motors, nickel-silver (a copper alloy), and a whole host of other things as that transaction will change the availability of copper within "the system" and other producers will have the ability to take advantage of the reduced supply to increase their prices-- where else are you gonna get it from ??
So in this example, who is to blame for the price increase? The Model Railroad reseller? The locomotive manufacturer? The raw materials supplier? The intermediate sub-assemblies supplier? All of whom have had to adjust their costs and pricing commensurate with the prevailing market price and, more likely than not, pass the increased costs along to the end consumer. (Or in the case of a costs drop, pocket the difference if they can get away with it.)
There, I've made a large part of your case for you.
As to whether the "rich are deserving of their money"-- that's mostly a separate topic-- but one aspect of it seems germaine:
Is there a "natural" price of a thing?
This, to my mind is really the essential question, and unfortunately I don't see any easy answer to it. Regardless of who's theories you ascribe to-- capitalist, marxist, socialist, or looney tunes-- the idea of a "natural price" attempts to "normalize" the value / cost ratio (or classically the price / value ratio) via some (supposedly) objective measurement, which is itself questionable in terms of what it does or does not include in the analysis. And then, supposing you can make a determination, you then have to state it in terms of some sort of "universal" reference that everyone can pretty much agree on, which is also subject to question-- i.e. to state it in terms of "cost versus what?", or more plainly "What's it worth in chickens and goats?" (Or gold, as would be the more traditional "relative" currency)
However, to me there might be an even more "natural" way of defining it, which is "a price that most everyone considers 'fair and reasonable', based on their own criteria of assessing its relative and/or intrinsic worth." Which would eliminate the fringes-- the "give me everything for free" crowd and the "sky's the limit, torque 'em till they bleed" folks. (But of course that definition gets harder and harder to achieve as the type of item (or service for that matter) gets more and more esoteric-- to the point that it, or the technolgy / processes it is based on, is ever farther from the experience, education or understanding of the "common man" to assess.)
To obtain that thing below the assumed natural price, would be getting a "bargain". To have to pay more than the assumed natural price would be "getting gyped". To what degree is also up for collective assesment. If you obtain an item at a little below its "natural price", you're getting a good deal. If you get it for a lot below the natural price, you're getting "a steal". Likewise, going the other way, if you pay a little more for it, you might grumble but acknowledge that "a man's gotta make a living", or mumble about "profit margins" and such. If you buy it in a 7/11 or other "convenience" store, you might remark about who's being convenienced. If it goes northward of that you might complain about price gouging and so forth, and ultimately about "being robbed". Of course, the nice little mantra that always follows, is "you didn't have to make the deal" which is supposed to dismiss the concerns of the purchaser and absolve the conscience of the seller.
So by that criteria and standard, the "morality" version of the question "do the rich deserve their money" is essentially-- what did they do to get it? Did they treat people "fairly" and engage in "fair" transactions to achieve it? Or did they "put people to the screws" and "bled 'em" for "all they were worth"? And then, "so what if they did?" And of course this also assumes we're only talking about the "rich people" who "earned" their money (one way or another) as opposed to those "rich people" who inherited their money and just used their money to make more money. Which I think pretty much everybody (except perhaps the "rich people who inherited their money") would agree is a separate category.
And just for the record, I don't have anything in particular against "rich people", except for the ones that use exclusionary, monopolist or coercive tactics to achieve their wealth. Even the ones who inherit their money are acting on the "accidentals of fortune" that surround their birth-- i.e., we're all given a "hand to play" (as Crandell suggests and I just got.... Ante Up! :-)
And that leads to the second element of the question-- and the one that is most germaine and relevant to this topic, and that of Model Railroading in general-- what happens when the "actors" (vis a vis their businesses, corporations, or other legal apparatus) "use" their wealth to garner for themselves a "favored" position? I.e., a monopoly, near-monopoly, or a "legal loophole" (or a "legal exclusion"), back-end "deals", "exclusionary sales channels", or some other construct that unbalances the market and tips the equation to their favor?
This is where I (personally) part company with traditional capitalism.
As long as the unbalance is purely local, I don't have a big problem with it because it's generally possible for a new actor to enter the market or else influence it in a different way to rebalance things. But as businesses grow, they tend to reach out and seek new / other / additional markets. And it is only "natural" (human nature) for their owners (or controllers) to want to "fix things" so that business will continue to work "in their favor"-- i.e., give them some sort of advantage-- and thus "guarantee" their continued success. Each time they "reach out" they begin to affect more and more of the larger "regional" market, and then larger "regional" markets, "national" markets, until finally they are able to operate in an international market.
From the traditional perspective, each of these expansions offers them additional customers (consumers), access to new resources, reduction in costs through economies of scale and so forth, and other benefits that go along with a growing ever-expanding concept of business. The other side of that however, is that each expansion helps improve the odds of longevity and continued viability for the business, and increases the difficulty of competition in the same market by others. As the level of difficulty of competition increases, the dominant business is more and more able to compete with less "drag", brought about as the consequence of competition, and more able to set pricing for their products that is favorable to themselves and farther away (northward) of the "fair" ("natural") price of their customers.
The standard response to this is of course, "We just put the products out there and set our price. You're free not to buy them." Which is all fine and good as long as there is plenty of healthy competition-- or at least, potential competition. But once the dominant business has eliminated all (realistic) possibilities for competition, there remains but only one or two or a few places to purchase the product-- and then it is no longer true to say "You're free not to buy them."-- the implication of which is that you can go elsewhere for your products-- because there is no elsewhere, or else only a few elsewhere's, and the consumer no longer truly has a choice, and the market for that product or service is no longer truly open and free.
Sometimes monopolies occur or are "granted" in the "interest of everyone"-- under the euphamistic term "natural monopolies". The idea being that the potential of "economies of scale" reduction in costs can in the overall benefit the community at-large, and are thus claimed to be a "sound" basis for granting a provider sole, exclusionary (or near-exclusionary) access to a product, resource, or service, with the thought that likely there would be no real "competition" for that same product at the same level or scale that is being granted. Thus the community is "betting" they will have a better deal if they "give the works" to a single actor who has everything, rather than buying the "best of breed" product or service from the collection of actors that may exist to offer the same product or service in a more traditional competitive market. Of course those entities permitted to operate as a monopoly are also generally saddled with some sort of "oversight" or "regulatory" element, but in practice, they rarely (IMO) seem to do all that much regulating and instead exist as another greedy hand held out. (My opinion)
Thus, it is my opinion that companies-- corporate entities-- "businesses"-- left to grow unchecked, unbounded, free to practice "capitalism" will always, if able, exert themselves that is negative and ultimiately ANTI-competitive in nature.
One classic real-world example of this-- which, as an aside is ironic in the extreme-- is Microsoft giving money to Apple in the early 2000's to prop them up and keep them afloat during a rough patch so Microsoft could continue to point to them as a "competitor", so scant was its competition-- and as it was being itself examined and ultimately tried and *CONVICTED* by the U.S. Justice Department of engaging in monopolistic and coercive practices. There are many people in the computer and IT community who feel that Microsoft has done much to stifle and quench competition, innovation and influence-- if not outright set-- pricing and the de-facto adoption of operating systems and software throughout the industry. Perhaps there is an argument to be made regarding the "benefit" of a more-or-less singly-adopted operating system $1***$2"standard") or that it might have occured on its own naturally-- but that would be the rosiest spin of the history of the industry. The more typical view would not be so nice, nor polite.
So what's the "one true" answer?
I don't know if there is one.
Is "capitalism" all bad?
I don't know the answer to that either-- or at least, I haven't decided for myself yet. Perhaps it is merely "corruptable" and presentedly "corrupted", in which case at least in theory the situation oughta be able to be rectified through oversight and regulation (and a few judicious prosecutions). But I haven't seen any indication that any of the three are presently possible-- whether through their inability to apply, or the unwillingness to apply remains to be seen (personally I think more of the latter than the former).
But my question / challenge still stands I think-- I would like someone to make a good case / argument demonstrating how Manufacturer "A" can made a product nearly identical to Manufacturer "B"s product and then charge five times as much (or much more) for it while claiming it to simply be a matter of "differences in costs". If you wanna put it out there that its simple "greed" (or we can be nicer about it and say "mark-up", "profit margin" or whatever euphamism you choose) that's fine. But as the old saying goes, don't sprinkle me with the hose and tell me its raining.
Oh, and whether "rich people deserve their money" or not, I reckon is left as an exercise for the reader!
I am pretty much in the same boat as Cambus. Modeling US prototype is a small niche in Europe and there are not many businesses selling US stuff over here. There is not really a market and, thus, hardly any competition. Pricing is purely done on a mark-up basis, with an orientation on the overpriced local stuff. The result looks like this:
A Bachmann Spectrum 4-6-0 w/o DCC, which you can buy at $ 100 - 120, sells for 180 Euros in Germany, which translates into roughly $ 250. To my knowledge, they are not bought in the US, but directly from Bachmann in China.
The only way to go is to buy in the US and have it shipped to you from there. It then looks like this
Still a considerable saving, but nearly double the price you folks have to pay in the US!
cambus267 I have been watching this discussion and I would like to give a point of view from the other side of the pond. I was at the major model railway show in Glasgow at the beginning of the year, and I was looking at the Bachmann Europe stand, very impressive by far the largest trader on display and I was looking at their lastest British outline models. The finish and detail were better than anything that had been around the U.K. scene. Very nice detail very crisp finish. At last someone was giving British modellers quality, however, the rub was the price in excess of $200-300 way above what was expected. I inquired as too why the high price to be informed by the rep "Its all about DCC". I found this a bit strange since unlike American model railroaders we dont have the space and we only run 1 or 2 locos at a time. I was then told that "That's what we have agreed with the Chinese. Every unit has to have DCC regardless". So it would appear to me that the Chinese are dictating what we want, not everybody wants DCC but everybody will have it adding $100 aprox to the price.Also I have noticed that on ebay it appears to be almost now the sole domain of ebay stores many of which refuse to sell outside the US or who put you of by charging ridiculous mail prices I have price quoted for a 40ft boxcar to be shipped to the UK range from $6 to $45 can somebody please explain that to me. But the bottom line is we as a hobby are being ripped off because we are seen as to have money.
I have been watching this discussion and I would like to give a point of view from the other side of the pond. I was at the major model railway show in Glasgow at the beginning of the year, and I was looking at the Bachmann Europe stand, very impressive by far the largest trader on display and I was looking at their lastest British outline models. The finish and detail were better than anything that had been around the U.K. scene. Very nice detail very crisp finish. At last someone was giving British modellers quality, however, the rub was the price in excess of $200-300 way above what was expected. I inquired as too why the high price to be informed by the rep "Its all about DCC". I found this a bit strange since unlike American model railroaders we dont have the space and we only run 1 or 2 locos at a time. I was then told that "That's what we have agreed with the Chinese. Every unit has to have DCC regardless". So it would appear to me that the Chinese are dictating what we want, not everybody wants DCC but everybody will have it adding $100 aprox to the price.Also I have noticed that on ebay it appears to be almost now the sole domain of ebay stores many of which refuse to sell outside the US or who put you of by charging ridiculous mail prices I have price quoted for a 40ft boxcar to be shipped to the UK range from $6 to $45 can somebody please explain that to me. But the bottom line is we as a hobby are being ripped off because we are seen as to have money.
Shipping rates, especially international rates is a function of who makes the market and also how much packaging costs. Not everyone gives tyou free packaging for shipping like USPS or others do. In addition you usuall need more than just the box so now you've got to buy buble wrap or peanuts to put into the box so that the product you're shipping doesn't get smashed becaquse if it can get smashed it will get smashed since all shipping companies seem to have discovered gorillas to do the job who will work for bananas instead of cash. Then there is the person who packs the box. All of that costs money in one way or the other. It has to come from somewhere and it isn't always practical to include this cost in the price becaue sending something to New Jersey from New York isn't as costly as sending something to the UK. So why charge your New Jersey customer the same price as the one in the UK?
There is also another factor to be considered and that is customs duties. Usually the purchaser is responsible for these when he or she picks up the product yo sent them bu that isn't always true as sometimes it's the shipper who has to pay certain fees to swend something to certain countries regardless of hwo you sent it.
Add that to the fact that international rates are set by treaty and may, but usually don't, reflect the actual cost of shipping. In other words the rates that you pay may not reflect the acftual costs of doing the job plus the differences in exchange rates between currencies. So why would a $100 Bachmman itkem cost $400 on the shelves? It isn't only DCC. Currency fluctuations certainly don't help.
Irv
andrechapelon From ebay-- the guy's got at least three listings of these, and each of those is for multiple units. I agree that's a bit bigger than your typical loco. But the same thing from MTH or BLI is still around $500 bucks. Best I've seen for something similar to this from them is around $450. The price is still well north of $100 bucks and if it's not a loco you want, you're as SOL as if the price were much higher. A guy who wants a modernized ATSF 3800 class 2-10-2 isn't going to be satisfied with a Bachmann USRA light 2-10-2 regardless of price and while scratchbuilding is an option, it's not going to save money. You're treating locomotives as if they were commodities like wheat or corn and they're not . I don't care how cheap this guy is selling DCC/sound equipped C&O H-4's because I have no desire for one. Now that particular price would be much more attractive for the USRA version (incidentally, the Bachmann H-4 is nothing more than a modified version of their earlier USRA 2-6-6-2) because that could be bashed into one of the two SP MM-3's. But even then, I'm not that interested because SP's two MM-3's were restricted to the LA Division. Suppose you could get BLI's Reading T-1 for the same priceas the H-4 from this guy. The chassis could probably be used as a starting point for a SSW L-1/SP GS-8. However, you'd need to scratchbuild the boiler and cab, shorten the tender chassis and scratchbuild the tender body. By the time you got through with that project and paid for all the PSC and Cal-Scale castings, you'd probably have spent as much money as if you bought a Westside GS-8 on the second hand brass market.. In any case, how many people are going to buy a Reading T-1 based primarily on price? For that matter, how many people would buy a Pennsy K-4 if the rest of their steam locomotives were equipped with radial stay fireboxes even if the K-4 were cheaper than, say a USRA Light 4-6-2 (more in keeping with their USRA inspired steam roster). The fact that they're both Pacifics is irrelevant. A rebuilt Bulleid :"Merchant Navy" is also a Pacifc ( http://www.clan-line.org.uk/html/gallery.html ), but I doubt there are many people on this side of the Atlantic that would take one even if they were given away. I would, but then I've ridden behind "Clan Line". Andre Spectrum HO 82624 C&O H-4 2-6-6-2 Articulated Steam DCC Buy It Now $221.95 Free shipping Time left:8d 22h 35m
From ebay-- the guy's got at least three listings of these, and each of those is for multiple units. I agree that's a bit bigger than your typical loco. But the same thing from MTH or BLI is still around $500 bucks. Best I've seen for something similar to this from them is around $450.
The price is still well north of $100 bucks and if it's not a loco you want, you're as SOL as if the price were much higher. A guy who wants a modernized ATSF 3800 class 2-10-2 isn't going to be satisfied with a Bachmann USRA light 2-10-2 regardless of price and while scratchbuilding is an option, it's not going to save money.
You're treating locomotives as if they were commodities like wheat or corn and they're not . I don't care how cheap this guy is selling DCC/sound equipped C&O H-4's because I have no desire for one. Now that particular price would be much more attractive for the USRA version (incidentally, the Bachmann H-4 is nothing more than a modified version of their earlier USRA 2-6-6-2) because that could be bashed into one of the two SP MM-3's. But even then, I'm not that interested because SP's two MM-3's were restricted to the LA Division.
Suppose you could get BLI's Reading T-1 for the same priceas the H-4 from this guy. The chassis could probably be used as a starting point for a SSW L-1/SP GS-8. However, you'd need to scratchbuild the boiler and cab, shorten the tender chassis and scratchbuild the tender body. By the time you got through with that project and paid for all the PSC and Cal-Scale castings, you'd probably have spent as much money as if you bought a Westside GS-8 on the second hand brass market.. In any case, how many people are going to buy a Reading T-1 based primarily on price? For that matter, how many people would buy a Pennsy K-4 if the rest of their steam locomotives were equipped with radial stay fireboxes even if the K-4 were cheaper than, say a USRA Light 4-6-2 (more in keeping with their USRA inspired steam roster). The fact that they're both Pacifics is irrelevant. A rebuilt Bulleid :"Merchant Navy" is also a Pacifc ( http://www.clan-line.org.uk/html/gallery.html ), but I doubt there are many people on this side of the Atlantic that would take one even if they were given away.
I would, but then I've ridden behind "Clan Line".
You keep moving the target. The original issue here was the cost of buying locos and stuff. Certainly if you "build an automobile out of spare parts" its going to cost a fortune, if for no other reason than paying all of the individual markup and "warehousing" costs associated with the individual parts. So to say you can start with loco X or Y and then tack on a bunch of after-market / third-party parts to come up with something uber-expensive is-- quite oddly at the same time-- both making the original OP's point about the cost of the hobby -AND- way off the mark to being a separate topic.
The point I was making is that you have to locomotives of similar size, complexity, raw materials, and degree of manufacture and the resultant price for the one is far and away higher than the other. The quality and refinement of the end product-- which I'm sure can be argued endlessly-- at least to *my* view is not all that different, and frankly, to hear other people in other threads talk about it-- not even necessarily on-par with each other. I've heard many horror stories about the more expensive brands that would cause me to have pause-- parts failing prematurely, or never working at all. Units arriving maladjusted and/or broken. Poor quality-control. etc. And to put it out there bluntly-- what is the point of spending a zillion dollars on an item (relative to the cost of an ordinary item) and not even getting decent quality control !?!? (But that too is the subject of another conversation)
Here are some (admittedly old) links to various do-it-yourself DCC sites that show how many of the items involved in DCC work. As I acknowledged earlier, a lot of this stuff is "old" in "computer-years" terms, but demonstrates the basic principles and circuitry, and the new stuff really isn't all that different, just newer updated parts which typically tend to compact or eliminate earlier sections, or else just add additional functionality for a similar price.
OpenDCC
http://www.opendcc.de/index_e.html
MERG List DCC Resources (Model Electronic Railway Group)
http://www.merg.org.uk/resources/dcc.htm
Flashwave This all still makes a good point. A Bach, even a Spec, most of the time does not match a BLI, but how much difference IS there between the decoders? That;s what I got form the orignal comparison. There can't be that much, they both do the same things, made of the same parts, and there's only so many weays you can safely wire a decoder. Some of Bach's DCC only boards are shorted some of their features, or at least the prorgramming, but what's the difference there? I will however offer that the boards in those ambulances are only recieving three inputs, and not having to be wired against fluctuating currents, two different current levels, (DC, DCC) have to interept a messege from a single input, and turn it into one of 12 functions, maybe even 24 or 30, or one of hundreds of programming cues.
This all still makes a good point. A Bach, even a Spec, most of the time does not match a BLI, but how much difference IS there between the decoders? That;s what I got form the orignal comparison.
There can't be that much, they both do the same things, made of the same parts, and there's only so many weays you can safely wire a decoder. Some of Bach's DCC only boards are shorted some of their features, or at least the prorgramming, but what's the difference there?
I will however offer that the boards in those ambulances are only recieving three inputs, and not having to be wired against fluctuating currents, two different current levels, (DC, DCC) have to interept a messege from a single input, and turn it into one of 12 functions, maybe even 24 or 30, or one of hundreds of programming cues.
That's a good question.
Its not as difficult as you might think. A DCC decoder is comprised of a small embedded microcrontroller / CPU (a one-chip "computer"), a motor controller-- which is typically a just a simple H-bridge type circuit, nothing fancy, and a handful of discrete components.
Handing DC (power-pack) versus DCC (digital control) is pretty simple really, the microcontroller looks / waits for the presence of DCC signals on power-up for a short amount of time, and if it doesn't sense any, it flips an electronic switch which permits the track voltage to go directly to the motor and bypasses (disengages) the DCC portion. Its a software trick and one extra component. I even looked up the patent to be sure (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6320346.pdf). Personally I think the technique was pretty obvious and not deserving of a patent, but that's a different topic.
Once you have the microcontroller onboard, all of the other stuff is easy and is for the most part handled through software. DCC controllers are pretty simple beasties.
When you add the component of sound, it gets a little more complicated, but not much. Depending on the scheme of the manufacturer, they generally add a DAC (digital to analog) circuit (IC chip) that knows how to interpret a sound file (typically in ".wav" format) and a few additional discrete components to fill-out the sound-- generally some sort of RC "tank" circuit-- tack on a speaker and you're good to go.
The cost of both chips and the various discrete components is probably $10-15 bucks in quantity-- if even that much. Add on the circuit board manufacturing costs, again in quantity, and you're probably looking at $0.50 a board or so. I don't know whether they typically hand-stuff the boards (SMD components) or have a pick-n-place robot do it-- but either way, that's probably the "costliest" aspect of manufacturing the board-- and even that is not terribly expensive, especially if they have robots do it.
The newer boards add "Back EMF" sensing / feedback, but that adds nearly nothing to the circuit design, a diode, capacitor and resistor and a free analog-to-digital input on the controller being the most likely scheme, but other methods are possible and possibly even easier.
Newer sound decoders include more memory on the chip to store larger / more wave files and such, but that's a byproduct of ever-improving / ever-shrinking microcontroller design-- and those parts keep getting cheaper and cheaper in every iteration.
Frankly, there isn't much you can do to the basic DCC decoder circuit design to make it all that more expensive. For the most part the "new" and "extra" features are generally byproducts of whatever "stuff" is crammed into the microcontroller and however many pins you have left over on the controller to do other stuff with (this part can be variable, at the manufacturing level, based on the manufacturer's selection of microcontroller-- some have more pins, some fewer. The cost varies a small amount based on the selection).
Compare this to the sound board on the ambulance toy-- almost identical.
-Morgan
It is an open game of poker. Ante up, and there's a seat for you with five cards to come. No biggie.....
galaxy rrinker: One thing seems to be overlooked - there just aren't that many model railroaders! No matter how much we think our hobby is the best one ever (and it is!), there just aren't that many of this. 'VOLUME' is not a word in the MRR manufacturing industry. On top of that, that limited pool of potential customers has gotten a lot pickier in the past few years. No longer is it acceptable to build one F unit body and print on the road name of every railroad that ever owned one (and even some that didn't). That's not good enough any more. Modelers have demanded more prototypical accuracy and manufacturers have delivered - but to make all those variations means even smaller unit sales and higher costs. --Randy So by that theory it becomes a more "exclusive" hobby that only the rich can afford, and not the commoner, thereby automatically reducing the number of willing and able participants who can buy anything manufactured. Maybe we should go back to only brass models. That'll knock out all the hobbyists of lower means and make it more an "exclusive club"!
rrinker: One thing seems to be overlooked - there just aren't that many model railroaders! No matter how much we think our hobby is the best one ever (and it is!), there just aren't that many of this. 'VOLUME' is not a word in the MRR manufacturing industry. On top of that, that limited pool of potential customers has gotten a lot pickier in the past few years. No longer is it acceptable to build one F unit body and print on the road name of every railroad that ever owned one (and even some that didn't). That's not good enough any more. Modelers have demanded more prototypical accuracy and manufacturers have delivered - but to make all those variations means even smaller unit sales and higher costs. --Randy
One thing seems to be overlooked - there just aren't that many model railroaders! No matter how much we think our hobby is the best one ever (and it is!), there just aren't that many of this. 'VOLUME' is not a word in the MRR manufacturing industry.
On top of that, that limited pool of potential customers has gotten a lot pickier in the past few years. No longer is it acceptable to build one F unit body and print on the road name of every railroad that ever owned one (and even some that didn't). That's not good enough any more. Modelers have demanded more prototypical accuracy and manufacturers have delivered - but to make all those variations means even smaller unit sales and higher costs.
--Randy
So by that theory it becomes a more "exclusive" hobby that only the rich can afford, and not the commoner, thereby automatically reducing the number of willing and able participants who can buy anything manufactured.
Maybe we should go back to only brass models. That'll knock out all the hobbyists of lower means and make it more an "exclusive club"!
Perhaps those are the unintended consequences. But it surely is not "big evil greedy manufacturers" FORCING this stuff on us. We've chosen, and spoken with out wallets, that we want the more prototypical and accurate models.
A manufacturer can't MAKE customers buy something. There is no captive audience, or a monopoly in operation here. There wouldn't be a dozen different Big Boys on the market if someone wasn't buying them.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
jwhitten fwright: Sir Madog: Michael - it is a question of who´s bagging the money, the manufacturer or the importer? My guess is, that for a $ 28 car, the manufacturer sees not more than $ 5. Does it matter who bags the money? While I doubt that most model railroad importers or manufacturers are looking for huge profits or easy money, a healthy profit is essential for conducting business and risking capital in the first place. I learned never to begrudge another person his money as long as it was come by honestly (not through cheating or intentional fraud).Fred W So then a reasonable question is: When does the amount of mark-up / profit tip from being "honest" to "cheating" or "fraud" ?? John
fwright: Sir Madog: Michael - it is a question of who´s bagging the money, the manufacturer or the importer? My guess is, that for a $ 28 car, the manufacturer sees not more than $ 5. Does it matter who bags the money? While I doubt that most model railroad importers or manufacturers are looking for huge profits or easy money, a healthy profit is essential for conducting business and risking capital in the first place. I learned never to begrudge another person his money as long as it was come by honestly (not through cheating or intentional fraud).Fred W
Sir Madog: Michael - it is a question of who´s bagging the money, the manufacturer or the importer? My guess is, that for a $ 28 car, the manufacturer sees not more than $ 5. Does it matter who bags the money?
Michael - it is a question of who´s bagging the money, the manufacturer or the importer? My guess is, that for a $ 28 car, the manufacturer sees not more than $ 5.
Does it matter who bags the money?
While I doubt that most model railroad importers or manufacturers are looking for huge profits or easy money, a healthy profit is essential for conducting business and risking capital in the first place. I learned never to begrudge another person his money as long as it was come by honestly (not through cheating or intentional fraud).Fred W
So then a reasonable question is:
When does the amount of mark-up / profit tip from being "honest" to "cheating" or "fraud" ??
Having been involved in the push for quality that started in the '80s, I have seen the resulting (and supposedly brilliant) business model of moving upscale in terms of quality, price, and customer base take hold in more than one industry. But globalization is quickly ruining the upscale business model. Sure, globalization allows production of goods to be outsourced to cheaper places, and results in cheaper prices for consumers, at least until costs begin to level. Most forget that globalization also levels wages as the machinists and engineers now compete with their Indian and Chinese counterparts. While China and India have upward pressure on prevailing wages due to the desire to be (and be paid) like their US and European counterparts, there is downward pressure on US and European wages and benefits due to the competition to do the work. The premium in wages that US workers commanded is way more than is/was justified by higher productivity and performance, and is therefore unsustainable - just like the housing prices that outpaced prevailing wages were unsustainable. This leveling pressure on wages will undermine the business model of moving upscale with your product line. Applied to model railroading, there will be fewer buyers of $1200 locomotives sooner than most folks predict based on buyer age and interest alone.
So my prediction is that model mass production as we know it now will be gone within a decade, if not sooner. Whether there will be a new lower cost mass production (similar to today's Bachmann and traditional low end Lionel) that takes it place remains to be seen. Certainly, there will be a steady resurgence in cottage hobby suppliers, and quite likely an accompanying resurgence of model building. The industry will be much smaller, especially if we are once again building our locomotive and car rosters. You just don't have as many locomotives or cars if you build them instead of buying them.
And lest you think I'm one of the "rich" producers, I'm not. By far, my most expensive locomotive is my one FED HOn3 2-6-0, for which I paid over double what it cost when new 30-some years ago. And it still runs just as poorly out of the box as it did when it was new. I may someday break down and buy a $300 locomotive, but it's not going to be in the next year. I'm more likely to try to develop my skills tweaking and fixing an FED or similar to run decently.
just my thoughts
jwhitten So then a reasonable question is: When does the amount of mark-up / profit tip from being "honest" to "cheating" or "fraud" ?? John
In sales, never. Many years ago, people with as much intelligence as we have coined the term Caveat emptor. I am perfectly entitled to make a $1M plastic, horn-hook equipped purchase of a Tyco What'sit, and the seller is going to be lucky if I pay that much. We both get what we hope to, and what we set out to do. No fraud, no cheating. Honest? What's that? I am in no position to ask the seller what sort of profit he expects, nor is he required to reveal that information to me.
-Crandell
rrinker One thing seems to be overlooked - there just aren't that many model railroaders! No matter how much we think our hobby is the best one ever (and it is!), there just aren't that many of this. 'VOLUME' is not a word in the MRR manufacturing industry. On top of that, that limited pool of potential customers has gotten a lot pickier in the past few years. No longer is it acceptable to build one F unit body and print on the road name of every railroad that ever owned one (and even some that didn't). That's not good enough any more. Modelers have demanded more prototypical accuracy and manufacturers have delivered - but to make all those variations means even smaller unit sales and higher costs. --Randy