MRR Industry 40-Year Rule

[Rivet Miscounter]

I think we should lobby for new laws that force model railroad manufacturers to retire tooling after 40 years, just like freight cars have to be retired on the real railroads. (yes I know it's 50 now, yes this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek)

Exhibit A - CURRENT DECEMBER 2024 RELEASE

N-Scale Tooling created in 1979, car had initial MSRP of $6.75.  Yes, that's $30.58 in current dollars factoring inflation, and the current MSRP is--wut d fug!?!? *cheaper* at $30.00.  (For comparison, the NEWLY TOOLED, FROM SCRATCH Athearn N Berwick Bathtub coal gons coming next year MSRP at $33.33)     But, wayyyy not the point.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

-Upgrades: body mount couplers, metal wheels, likely improved trucks
-Upgrades: lettering is state-of-the-art compared to drunk kindergartener with an ink pad
-Upgrades: despite the garish look, the paint is actually closer to legit than you might think.   Still way off, but better than the doodoo brown FPPX cars that MDC Roundhouse did in 1980.  (these cars were a touch more "olive drab" off the showroom floor, but weathered wildly and quickly into a olive-brown mud color, then spent the next 30 years getting beat to hell and coated with rust, coal dust, and ballast grime.
-NOT Upgrades: shell looks like it has been carved out of a bar of soap
-NOT Upgrades: ladders look like a bad AI gen
-NOT Upgrades: Brakewheels *might* weigh two tons in real life

 

OK, well...  I do realize that I might only be one of dozen or two that truly care about this particular car in this roadname.   But overall, the Thrall coal gon was a pretty common car.   Athearn even re-tooled the HO car about a decade ago.   I get trying to squeeze blood from a turnip but....come'on Athearn....have some PRIDE!!!

I don't even need metal details here.   There have been some really outstanding plastic ladders done over the years, perfectly fine with that. (see Atlas coalveyors, et al)   Heck, go all FVM on us and mold the mounting holes and I'll gladly install them myself.

And yes, I have perspective and even a touch of hypocrite-itis.   If these photos were of a Z-Scale car, I would be extremely embarrassed for the poor soul that signed off on producing these cars.   Yet, ya know I might be buying a bunch.

And I'll confess....when I got back in N a few years back, the last run of these was out with SATX decoration (black and red) and it wasn't quite as bad of a look on a mostly black car.  I did buy several, but at a steeper than normal discount.  That run was MSRP $23.33 and I think I got them for somewhere approaching 50% off...and also found the previous run (basically sans body mounts and metal wheels) for $8-9/car.

With printed mounting holes for possibly etched ladders, I think in either N or Z I will just go the 3D printed route.   I know etching is now becoming problematic (as is 3D printing from a store, gah what is this the 2010's or something?) but man, can't we get this car updated somehow?    I'm curious about contracting to have 50-100 of these pad printed...anyone know about that realm at all?    Preferably sober kindergartners.

[Rivet Miscounter]

Here is a pic of this car in 2002 from Matt's Place.   This is easily one of the cleanest examples of this car so late in the game, but a good example of what the color would look like.   Just imagine slightly/signficantly more weathering.

https://www.matts-place.com/trains/coal/series/fppx1500-1509.htm

Here's one of my photos, also from 2002.   Granted, late afternoon sun, etc.   But more typical of what these cars looked like during that timeframe.   The Great Recession in 2008 ended these real quick.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Mark5]

Interesting concept 

I'd be happy if certain manufacturers would retire their most dimensionally challenged models, some of which apparently are serving as a roadblock to accurate models in N scale.

Mark

[peteski]

I think we should lobby for new laws that force model railroad manufacturers to retire tooling after 40 years, just like freight cars have to be retired on the real railroads. (yes I know it's 50 now, yes this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek)

I did not realize that there were actually laws (old or future) on the books that model train manufactures have to obey. 

All kidding aside, it would be nice if certain models made in a distant past could be retired, and new versions of those retired models produced using modern tooling and technology.

[StarCruiser]

Simple answer....

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[jpwisc]

I’d love to see Athearn update the 20k tanker. It is so far behind their ethanol tankers

[thomasjmdavis]

Interesting concept 

I'd be happy if certain manufacturers would retire their most dimensionally challenged models, some of which apparently are serving as a roadblock to accurate models in N scale.

Mark

Bluford getting into gondolas with a scale length Greenville style gondola, and suggesting that they were working on a 14 panel gondola as well, resolves my biggest dimensional challenge.  It didn't bother me that so many manufacturers made 50' gondola, but why they felt obligated to compress 53' gondolas, instead of modeling prototypes that were actually 50' (there were plenty).  I am unsure about the old Con-Cor 50' with 13 panels- no idea what the prototype for those is (if any).
Are there any prototype 50 foot (not 52 or 53) gondolas with 14 or 15 panels?

[CRR Chase]

I think it would be advantageous for manufacturers to release the bare minimum amount of certain models to the public, with a price point that reflects. this would do two things for them, it would give a true gauge of interest and also demand. which are two different things.. once the "demand" is established they could do a second run.. the risk that keeps any manufacturer from doing a project however is reception from the market. an expensive test run may help to wet the appetite of the consumer while protecting the pocket book of the manufacturer. The "rule" to this game would be a less expensive second run, not sure how that is played..

this would have to be played carefully and the marketing departments would have to come up with some sort of gimmick to entice the casual consumer on the first release.. but it could still give a good gauge..

I find it disheartening, these manufacturers want to provide cool models that we enjoy, but the pallet is broad for rail cars.. the pre-order thing is the way they seem to go.. but guys are leery of that now because cars and engines are showing up 5 years after they're ordered..   

I do think the way to make profit is to bite the bullet and retool. we consumers love detail.. this makes the higher price of a model more enticing. limit quantities also..

[NtheBasement]

Well, as a counterpoint I have probably 50 CSX, Chessie, C&O and B&O Atlas 3-bay coal hoppers, all with different road numbers.  Some are old enough that they came with Rapido couplers, newer ones are marketed as Trainman.  I don't know if they have released any recently but over the years the new road numbers kept coming out and I kept buying them to fill out my fleet.

[Rivet Miscounter]

Well, as a counterpoint I have probably 50 CSX, Chessie, C&O and B&O Atlas 3-bay coal hoppers, all with different road numbers.  Some are old enough that they came with Rapido couplers, newer ones are marketed as Trainman.  I don't know if they have released any recently but over the years the new road numbers kept coming out and I kept buying them to fill out my fleet.

Decent point and shows more of the subtleties to the discussion.   But the current MSRP (from 2023) for the 90-Ton cars is $20.95 vs $30.00 for the Athearn Thrall.   Not an insignificant difference, especially if you're buying a unit train's worth.

The reality is, Athearn putting this price tag on this tooling is no different than what Bachmann does.   We just wait for the fire sale and buy them at $10-12ea.  That puts them in the same range as the normal street price for the Atlas cars.  I'm to the point where I am not sure I really even want them at that price, and I had sort of decided against modeling the FPPX train anyway.  My goal is to eventually start upgrading the SATX cars and if I can get a good process for shaving off the molded on details, drilling holes, and installing some manner of ladders, then maybe I'll consider it.   Even thick (thick enough to be somewhat durable) 3D printed ladders would be in improvement over the molded on foolishness.    And that would be cheap enough to do versus trying to get etched versions.   So if I get to that point I might consider the FPPX train again.

[jdcolombo]

Not everyone who models in N scale (or any other scale) cares all that much about detail or dimensional accuracy.  Some folks care more about price, particularly if filling out a fleet of cars.  And others may just care that a particular model, which is "close enough" for them, is available at all.   Retire old tooling, and you may lose a particular body style completely, or at least lose it in a preferred paint scheme.

I've always been a "close enough" modeler.   When I started modeling the NKP in N scale in the early 1990's, there wasn't much available that were accurate NKP prototypes, and what WAS available was often pretty crude detail-wise.  So I bought stuff that was close, repainted it, had custom decals made, and turned it into something that was "pretty close" to an NKP prototype, but not really accurate.  One of the major examples of this was the NKP's bay window caboose; no one produced such a thing, but Model Power SP-prototype bay windows could be had at train shows for $1 each.   So I bought a dozen of 'em, stripped the bodies, painted them, decaled them, put on MT trucks with lo-profile wheels and body-mounted the couplers, and on the layout they went.  Since then, some pretty accurate engines and rolling stock have become available, but I still have a lot of those "close enough" models on my layout, including all those "wrong" cabooses.

Happy to have more accurate stuff these days, but let's not prematurely bury the "close enough" stuff that a lot of folks still depend on to make the hobby work for them.

John C.

[Scottl]

The costs of products, even those with old (likely fully amortized) tooling are mostly about current costs of operating as a company and retailing products.

[Mark5]

Not everyone who models in N scale (or any other scale) cares all that much about detail or dimensional accuracy.  Some folks care more about price, particularly if filling out a fleet of cars.  And others may just care that a particular model, which is "close enough" for them, is available at all.   Retire old tooling, and you may lose a particular body style completely, or at least lose it in a preferred paint scheme.

True. But, there are some glaring "holes" in N scale offerings. 15 years ago (when the Bluford 86' Hi Cubes came out) I became aware of the problems with MTLs 1970s era 60' Hi-Cubes: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=17866.msg155427#msg155427

The MTL models are vertically compressed, to offset the really high ride:


For reference, the proto ride height:


If I lower these to the correct ride height, then they look "funny" (as in too low) next to correctly tooled hi-cubes (I can't "unsee" this now - thanks Railwire!  ).

I thought about vertically extending the bodies on these to correct this, but a horizontal slice followed by sheet plastic "inserts" is not a task for the faint hearted.

So for now, there are no 60' high cubes suitable for use on my 1970s era layout. Maybe by 2035. 

Mark

[Mark5]

Well, as a counterpoint I have probably 50 CSX, Chessie, C&O and B&O Atlas 3-bay coal hoppers, all with different road numbers.  Some are old enough that they came with Rapido couplers, newer ones are marketed as Trainman. 

The tooling on these is actually pretty decent for when they came out (Atlas released these in the late 70s, made in USA no less). I have a ton of em, which I upgraded to 100 ton roller bearing trucks and body mounts.

Not all old tooling is horrendous. 

Mark