Not hugely. The biggest assembly time is in decoration, specifically the tampo (printing) setup. That doesn't change no matter how less or more detailed a model is. Every tampo position on one of our models is aligned by hand using Allen keys to adjust the X, Y and Z axis; and the tampo is all done by our skilled tampo workers rather than machines.
Micro-Trains (Kadee) has been using Tampo printing on their models since the start. They also based the MSRP of their models on the number of colors (Tampo passes). They have been doing that for decades and models still ate up their models. And like you said, it is a labor-intensive process (but so are multiple masking/spray-painting operations). So the way Rapido models are decorated doing with your models is nothing new or out-of-ordinary. Hey, Even Kato uses Tampo printing.
And once all the fixtures are initially aligned for a particular run, they don't have to be touched again - the employee just places the model on the fixture and hits the "print button". At least that is how I understand this.
What surprises me is that you identify it is (or the entire decoration process) as the most time intensive (to me it means "most costly") part of the model manufacturing. I would have expected drilling holes and installing all those separate add-on metal handrails, grabs and other items as the most time-consuming operation. But either way, I'm sure that eliminating all the added-on details would likely reduce the manufacturing cost of a model.
Going back to Tampo process, back around 2013 MTL started shifting the color decoration from Tampo to direct-to-substrate ink-jet printing. That also started the weathered/graffiti car craze. I wrote about it in
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28938.0 thread. The fidelity of the ink-jet decoration was rather poor (IMO), and since the resolution was not very good, they still Tampo-printed all the small lettering or other small graphics, over the ink-jet printed decoration. But that was 6 years ago, and the decoration quality has improved dramatically since that time. MTL learned that the print orientation was important, and they also must have upgraded their printer to a much higher-resolution model, and use thinner inks. They also learned to clear-coat the model to better blend the ink-jet printed areas with the painted areas. Nowadays, they pretty much used ink-jet printing exclusively. For example, on the billboard reefers, they paint the car boxcar red, then the entire side (usually yellow with full color markings) is done using the ink-jet process. I'm still not quite on-board with printing the yellow background using CYMK inks over white undercoat (it still doesn't look as sooth as yellow-painted car side), but they are acceptable. Overall, the car decoration looks good.
Even Kato uses ink-jet decoration on some of the offerings (like the Orient Express sets, and some other cars).
I wonder if you factory could explore the ink-jet decorating (as it seems to be the natural progression in decorating).
Mostly the issue comes down to volume. Kato sells more in month than we sell in a year. Their production runs of Japanese models could run into the thousands for just one paint scheme. Our production runs in N scale could be a couple of thousand over ALL the paint schemes. Each paint scheme takes a huge amount of setup time.
Honestly, we're not trying to be another Kato. We're doing our best to establish a niche. Our business model is not for everyone, but it is working for us. Otherwise we would not be launching all these new N scale models in the next two months.
But we're not interested in changing our whole modus operandi. When we came out with super-detailed passenger car models in HO over ten years ago a lot of people - including some store owners - told Dan and me that we were wasting our resources by including all of the crazy detail. They explained that most customers didn't want that detail level and didn't need it and would prefer to pay less for less-detailed models.
There is nothing wrong with that approach, but that is not our approach. Lesser-detailed models wouldn't be Rapido models.
Interesting . . .
I suspect that your statements above are based on market research.
I have not done any research, but my gut-feeling (like what some politicians use) tells me that the reason Rapido Trains continue to thrive has nothing to do with the extra level of added-on details on your models, but simply because you are producing models not of prototypes not produced by any other company. I'm strictly speaking of N scale, because i have no clue as to what the H0 market looks like. It could be that in H0, the lever of details on your models is a large factor in your success, but I'm fairly certain that if you produced another model of some oddball prototype, not made by any other company, with just basic details on it (not fancy wire grab irons), it would still sell like hotcakes. Heck, if you made a plain-Jane model of the GM "fishbowl" bus in N scale (just the basic 1-piece body with clear windows, roughly detailed interior and basic wheels), it would also sell like hotcakes. No need for separate lights lenses or LED illumination. That is how I see is (for N scale).
I think with the FL9, TurboTrain and the New Haven coaches we've shown that we can deliver detail as well as operational reliability in N scale.
Well . . .
Yes, the Turbo-Train is a *VERY* impressive Rapido Train offering. Thanks Mike (Puddy)!
There are things I would have liked to seen done differently, but not much, and those are minor things. I was impressed enough to get 2 sets (with sound).
The FL9 - not so much. The electronic bits being retained by strips of gaffer-tape is a bit amateurish (like something a modeler would do at home). The tape also makes removal of the shelf a but difficult (and spreads the sides out a bit). Yes, I will be redoing mine one of these days. The truck design is also IMO sub-par. It is like something I would expect from Bachmann.
Actually the same goes for the Turbo-Train's power trucks to, but at least there the inside-bearing wheelsets are good excuse to use that type of electric pickup system. And with all the trucks picking up power, the power-truck pickup is not critical.
You mentioned that Kato comparison is not fair. I grant you that. But how about comparing you to Micro-Trains? They are a fairly small manufacturer that makes quality models, and seems to also be thriving. But I like to compare the level of details between Rapido and MTL reefers (yes, I'm going there again). Take your reefer, and MTL reefer and examine the underframe. Theirs has very finely molded details, while Rapido seems more crude and toy-like. Why is that? I would have expected that the overseas mold makers would be able to match the engraving quality of the American mold makers (both cars are similarly priced with similar level of details).
But the bottom line is that if you keep making N scale models of prototypes not produced by anybody else, I suspect that Rapido will continue to thrive.
