Why can't manufacturers just get it right?

[Puddington]

Do you ever make a spreadsheet to track the common features that a base model can include and still be "prototypical" for many roads that used it? You could determine which details to include, and which need to be installed by the purchaser after the fact.

Have you been spying on me.....???????

That is exactly what I have been doing with this and another research project.... I've got one sheet at over 70 columns wide of "spotting features".....

We'll still miss something.... that's a given...... hope it's a small thing and not one that mirrors the "great" missing sight glass debate of a certain GP a few years ago.....

[ljudice]

Luckily you'll never see complaints about new products on Railwire!

[victor miranda]

why can't they get it right?

dunno... what isn't right?

the path to correct and right
can we use neat and tidy?

the path to neat and tidy is frequently found in the definition.
If a detail is correct for one paint job
and it is the same detail in a different paint job
why is it not correct?

how close or far is 'correct?'

I would like smooth operations for shunting cars.
this is a detail the is often not correct?

is that the same problem as paint job being the wrong shade of red or purple?

ooof

do your best and hope the things sell.
there are ALWAYS flaws.

victor

[coosvalley]

This reminds me of the True Line boxcar.....One mistake, and they seem to have decided N scale wasn't for them....I remember the comment"but we had "experts" look them over!"....I wonder if those "experts" were paid?...Seems to me they missed a pretty easy thing to spot...Too bad, too, because if those cars were right, I would have bought a bunch of them!...

My pet peeves are ride height, and hood width....We know how wide hoods are, and we know how high off the rail they are.....If hood width is, say a couple scale inches too wide, and it's hardly noticeable, then I will buy one....the MT sw1500, is(to me) just too wide, especially when next to an MP-15.....YMMV....combine that with a mechanism that I don't really like, and that equals no sale, at least to me.......But then again, I don't really run my SW-9 for the same reason, so getting a "new " loco using the same old mech kinda killed it, for me anyway...

I would rather a part be left off, and for me to add, than for a detail to be molded on, and having to remove it...I also can paint and decal my own, so paint issues are no big deal to me, but I can see how this would bother others...

I doubt this helps anyone, but it's my 2cents...

 

[peteski]

Looking at the comments I find it interesting that there is a very small handful of comments (mine included) about getting the mechanical design "right". Most of the members here seem to focus on the fidelity of the shell details and/or the decoration.  The mechanism doesn't seem all that important to most here. 

Most of the skin-deep problems can be easily remedied. Poor mechanism - no so easily.

[central.vermont]

Looking at the comments I find it interesting that there is a very small handful of comments (mine included) about getting the mechanical design "right". Most of the members here seem to focus on the fidelity of the shell details and/or the decoration.  The mechanism doesn't seem all that important to most here. 

Most of the skin-deep problems can be easily remedied. Poor mechanism - no so easily.

I'm with ya on this one Pete, but I think the reason it hasn't been hit on much is that Puddy's original post made no mention of it. I have to agree with coosvalley on what he has to say about the dressing of a Pig, you can dress it up all you want but it's still a pig under the dress. No matter what color/colour it is!!

Jon

Jon

[peteski]

I'm with ya on this one Pete, but I think the reason it hasn't been hit on much is that Puddy's original post made no mention of it. I have to agree with coosvalley on what he has to say about the dressing of a Pig, you can dress it up all you want but it's still a pig under the dress. No matter what color/colour it is!!

Jon

Jon

I guess I look at things from a different perspective. But I knew that already. 

[ljudice]

  The mechanism doesn't seem all that important to most here. 

These trains have a mechanism in them?  You're kidding.   

[Rossford Yard]

As a running modeler (with lots of locos and freight cars) I appreciate the insights from one who has been there.  I guess, at age 60, and recalling how bad some early N scale stuff was, and also recalling all the stand ins in both HO (before I switched in 1990) and N, I am just more than happy with all the great offerings, and troubled little by some of the commercial compromises that must still be made.

In big picture terms, I would actually think, that given the downturn and stagnation in MRR sales since the 2000 recession, those compromises would be expected to increase with fewer sales.

In the 1985-2000 era, in the boom times, they would have been expected to decrease, with great sales to support minor variations.

And, I think that is just about what is happening, although in general quality keeps going up.  As customers, we notice when companies fail to meet pre-established quality benchmarks, previously established.  For example, we notice the MT shell width issue, since overly wide hoods are so rare now.

It started with Kato Locos and their great drives. No engine with a drive much below that quality would sell (Bachmann comes to mind in an earlier era)

Life Like (of all folks) introduced the fine scale handrails on their SD7 many years ago, and coarse handrails were no longer acceptable to us.

Snap together shells with basic variations (NS high hood, dynamic/non dynamic, high or low headlights depending on road name) became available, and now we expect that, and most mfg. deliver.  Glue shells are "verboten." DCC ready is standard.  Sound options look like the next big thing.

Maybe the mfg. will start to see alternate fuel cap locations, windshield wipers, and other minor detail variations as necessary somewhere down the road.  It looks to me like they keep improving the product and minor shell variations are lower priorities than running quality, finer general detail, DCC and sound. 

I suspect they will get there, and in the meantime, they expect that those who care will detail away, as they have done for decades.  Right now, those minor variations, while complained about here, simply haven't affected sales. It is more than possible, that the rising costs have had an impact on sales, and they know (or feel in their bones) another $5 for more prototype fidelity is the tipping point.

On each loco, a whole lot of things go into what is "good enough."  Going back to the SW1500, it appears the need for that road model, and the need to keep costs reasonable by using existing motors, still allows MT a home run, even with those over wide hoods.  If it was another GP unit, maybe not. Either way, I am happy to have those for my IHB.

[johnb]

As a running modeler (with lots of locos and freight cars) I appreciate the insights from one who has been there.  I guess, at age 60, and recalling how bad some early N scale stuff was, and also recalling all the stand ins in both HO (before I switched in 1990) and N, I am just more than happy with all the great offerings, and troubled little by some of the commercial compromises that must still be made.

In big picture terms, I would actually think, that given the downturn and stagnation in MRR sales since the 2000 recession, those compromises would be expected to increase with fewer sales.

In the 1985-2000 era, in the boom times, they would have been expected to decrease, with great sales to support minor variations.

And, I think that is just about what is happening, although in general quality keeps going up.  As customers, we notice when companies fail to meet pre-established quality benchmarks, previously established.  For example, we notice the MT shell width issue, since overly wide hoods are so rare now.

It started with Kato Locos and their great drives. No engine with a drive much below that quality would sell (Bachmann comes to mind in an earlier era)

Life Like (of all folks) introduced the fine scale handrails on their SD7 many years ago, and coarse handrails were no longer acceptable to us.

Snap together shells with basic variations (NS high hood, dynamic/non dynamic, high or low headlights depending on road name) became available, and now we expect that, and most mfg. deliver.  Glue shells are "verboten." DCC ready is standard.  Sound options look like the next big thing.

Maybe the mfg. will start to see alternate fuel cap locations, windshield wipers, and other minor detail variations as necessary somewhere down the road.  It looks to me like they keep improving the product and minor shell variations are lower priorities than running quality, finer general detail, DCC and sound. 

I suspect they will get there, and in the meantime, they expect that those who care will detail away, as they have done for decades.  Right now, those minor variations, while complained about here, simply haven't affected sales. It is more than possible, that the rising costs have had an impact on sales, and they know (or feel in their bones) another $5 for more prototype fidelity is the tipping point.

On each loco, a whole lot of things go into what is "good enough."  Going back to the SW1500, it appears the need for that road model, and the need to keep costs reasonable by using existing motors, still allows MT a home run, even with those over wide hoods.  If it was another GP unit, maybe not. Either way, I am happy to have those for my IHB.

that really fat MTL SW1500 is 6 scale inches too wide, or .05 real inches too wide....yeah, really off. Give them a break, that is almost perfect. Let's see if you can make it exact.

[Rossford Yard]

johnb,

You seem to have missed my point. I am glad to have them. But, you have to admit it was a pretty hot topic of debate on forums.  Luckily, opinions on this forum are only part of what goes into any model.

Joe explained why they made the value engineering decision to use the old LL motor, and that developing a new motor just to shave that 6" of scale width off the hood would have cancelled the project.  (I will presume they approached Atlas for the MP 15 motor, and they said no, or they didn't ask, figuring Atlas would reserve it for their own future models, but that is just a guess)

So, it is a good example of what the OP says.  Slightly off shell on a much needed model or no model at all for maybe a decade by someone else.

Now, I will say that it is noticeable to me, since it runs side by side on the layout with other locos.  But, I bought several of them anyway because having that model best represents what I am trying to model rather than some other stand in with a totally correct width hood.  For me, and apparently many others, MT made the right value judgment.  I am glad when any mfg. hits a home run with a hot selling product.

[JoeD]

 

[basementcalling]

I take the lack of posts about mechanical issues as proof N scale is well over the "running" hump. I just don't seriously question the operational reliability of new product these days, except for a few old reliably unreliable manufacturers who just don't get it.

[victor miranda]

I take the lack of posts about mechanical issues as proof N scale is well over the "running" hump. I just don't seriously question the operational reliability of new product these days, except for a few old reliably unreliable manufacturers who just don't get it.

ummmm....
I am not sure the  lack of posts about mechanical issues is proof...

from all I can tell, there are a lot of people who can't tell when a motor has failed.
I tend to think the lack of posts stems from expecting poor mechanical ability as normal.

victor

[peteski]

I take the lack of posts about mechanical issues as proof N scale is well over the "running" hump. I just don't seriously question the operational reliability of new product these days, except for a few old reliably unreliable manufacturers who just don't get it.

My point was that while I mostly agree with you, some of the mechanical designs used by several manufacturers are just "OK" when with just a tiny bit of extra effort could have been "great".  That's what is annoying. Plus it is not like those manufacturers have to invent a new mechanism - some really good designs are already out there and are even often copied by several (but not all) manufacturers.  It is when some manufacturers seem to make a step backward on their newly produced models is when I roll my eyes.

Then there is the other extreme - manufacturers that make excellent mechanisms already sometimes "jump the shark" and produce mechanisms which while having superb running qualities are over-designed!  For example a chassis which is all snap together instead if suing screws or using gears so fine that they very easily pick up debris which jams the mechanism (plus they are so delicate that they often get damaged by ham-fisted modelers).

My ideal mechanism would be built with close tolerances using high quality materials and a proven design, but also be robust enough not to get jammed easily or get easily damaged in handling.