An exploration of the meaning of innovation.

[Denver Road Doug]

It was not what I remember reading.
(I may well not have an accurate memory on the matter...)

<snip>

So If you think I am skirting something please consider; it ain't my style.

Victor, I certainly did not think you were skirting something.  Sorry if I came across that way.   And another thing, it very well could have been someone else that also commented on innovation...I did not re-read the entire treatise.

And, all-in-all I think I agree with you.   As another noted, it's not an innovation until someone buys it.  Well, I think it also would need to be recognized as an innovation by the stakeholders.  The "Kato spring suspension" implementation was probably intended/thought to be an innovation by Kato.   So, what you are suggesting as an innovation that was not a good thing....well that's true as long as we recognize it as an innovation in the first place.

That brings up "innovation as a marketing term", in which companies claim innovation when in fact it is really not.   Does Kato's suspension fall into this category?  I don't really think so....I do believe that they thought in might change things.   But there are examples (mostly outside of model railroading) where this overzealous marketing happens.  Which would be another example for innovations not being a good thing.   Which is why I say there has to be some recognition by an appropriate and relevant group that an innovation* has taken place.  (*or whatever appropriate word should be in its place, describing what we are talking about in this topic.)

I also think innovation can be taken at varying levels.  When the Atlas RS3 came out, was it innovative for n-scale?  I think we all agree yes.  Was it innovative for model railroading?  Meh-aybe...the performance existed in other scales already...adding that it is possible in the small form factor probably would classify as such at the broader level.   Innovative for the hobby industry?

So when I said it wan't innovative, I wasn't even referring to that broader view, but the narrowest.  Let's take Micro-Trains completely out of the equation.  Let's pretend we're talking about Life-Like, and they had their pretty successful SW9/1200.  They decide, hey an SW7 shell also works.  So they announce their intention to do so.   What were the expectations back then?  I don't remember the timeline and certainly don't remember discussions about it, but did anyone really think they were gonna be drastically different?   That was when DCC was still an afterthought so I doubt that was an expectation.  Possibly some were hoping for the rear headlight, but I doubt they expected it.

So to me, we had a bunch of folks expecting some innovative/revolutionary/evolutionary or simply state of the art locomotive from Micro-Trains.  What is being delivered is the equivalent of another SW7 shell, and the addition of DCC. 

And again, for the record, I don't think that's a horrible thing, but I don't have much of a dog in the hunt.  I would be disappointed if someone released an extra wide version of say a GP50.  So it would be hypocritical of me to say I don't care, except that I firmly believe that another SW1500 will be here sooner than later.  So that's why I wouldn't sweat it.

[bbussey]

You can't say something isn't innovative in one scale simply because it was done previously in another scale.  Things don't scale down uniformly, whether in detail, or performance, or physics.  You'd have to judge strictly within N scale, and not model railroading in general.

[Cajonpassfan]

When I hear of innovation at work, I tend to run for cover  
I think for innovative ideas to be truly meaningful, one has to have a good grasp of "state of the art" in whatever industry or endeavor one is involved in, and then push the envelope where new technologies and processes are available or where it is possible to incorporate "state of the art" thinking or products from other fields. Too often, innovative ideas are applied in a mediocre way and the result is utter failure.
With model railroad manufacturers, I'd happily settle for something close to "state of the art" products as a baseline, with an occasional push into the envelope, a steady evolution. Instead we get a two steps forward, one step back (sometimes more). I would start with a consistent standard for wheels and trackwork and couplers upon and around which everything else could be built... I wish someone would come with an innovative way to make that happen
Otto K., back to regular programming