Why can't manufacturers just get it right?

[Puddington]

Every so often you will see a comment like this "why can't manufacturers just get it right"?... I mean, why can't they make "x" car, locomotive, building correctly? The author will almost invariably point out that we live in the digital era with pictures of everything available for the taking. So; if the manufacturer would just look on the internet, grab the pictures and use them all would be right... right?

Well; as I am right now in the middle of a large research project for an upcoming locomotive announcement I thought I'd share some thoughts on this commonly held opinion. On the surface the thought is logical; there are more resources than ever before at the manufacturer's finger tips; you don't have to mail away for it, or subscribe, you just need to right click.... You can "put out the word" in this digital age and get lots of people you've never met help you; you can scan more material, faster, than ever before.... it's a heck of a lot easier than 20 years ago.... But even that has it's limitations....

a/ The internet is still the wild, wild west. The Dewey Decimal System doesn't apply here. The very pictures you need may well be on line but unless they're tagged correctly for your searches you might very well never know they exist. Recently I found the very shot of a B&O unit I needed on a website someone pointed me to that was all about a local towns history.... no tag to a locomotive, it just happened to be there...

b/ Date, time and place.... Rule number one, builders, build locomotives and cars... Rule number two, backshops and diesel shops modify them..... Unless you know when a picture was taken you run a risk using it as a hard and fast guideline. For example; on an Alco, if the prime mover has been changed from the troublesome Alco 244 to the 251 then you will have a change in the roof configuration. If you use the altered roof then you are running the risk of changing a major spotting feature for earlier units..... what to do......

c/ Hi Rez.... Most internet photo's are not hi rez, therefore details are hard to confirm and pick out. Builders shots are great but hard to come by and only tell the "beginning of the story". (That leads to another question, what version of a model do locomotive or car do you do, "as built", in service....?) Photo's also don't really give you measurements or distance, you have to "guess" on much of that without plans and blueprints - not always available or affordable. Lo rez photos are often shadowy and dark; so trucks, fuel tanks and the like are hard to see. No one seems to take pictures of the roof (hard to do) or the rear of a locomotive......

d/ Which scheme, which colour.... You can't match colour off photographs, period. (Even though modellers do) Colour is a subjective thing and a range of photographs will prove that out to you. Historical societies are great, awesome and invaluable. They can often provide you with paint chips or even wet samples. Some times a drift car is available.... but..... as we all know paint was a "moveable feast".... what shop produced it, was it to company standard or was it "MacGivered"...? What era, how old is the sample from...? Colours changed over years due to changes in pigments, paint formulations, suppliers and the relaxing of standards due to the budgets of railroads.... all of these things make "hitting the colour" harder than one might think.

What scheme.... this is where "people" come into play.  Historical societies are just a collection of interested people. The guy or gal you are working with probably has a era they model or are interested in; that creates a bias. Maybe not overtly but certainly in the background, what you are told, given and directed to will be coloured by that person's interests. The "opinion" of what livery or colour scheme to use is a hard question - when you consult a historical society you need to be aware of the potential bias of the people you are dealing with....you can't blame them, they are just advocating for their model.

e/ Variations..... Ok; so you're producing an F7.... there are 100's of variations to deal with. Which can you incorporate, which are common to many roads and phases.... which are spotting features and/or game breakers for specific roads.... which can be made as an add on part, or simple slide variation.... The manufacturer has to be able to identify these, that takes research and although we all do lot of that most model train companys' are small; we don't have 10 people in R&D. You have a limited amount of time and energy to spend of research. Now, we all have our areas of knowledge. Jason at Rapido is Mr. VIA; we don;t worry about that, I know a fair bit about the CPR and GN, Bill; the PRR, NYC and O&W are his ares and so on.... we don't, on the other hand know a hell of a lot about the FEC, the MP or the ACL.... so you rely on the library we have (extensive), the internet (crowded and confusing) and a list of experts (hist. groups, individuals etc...) to get the info..... but it's by no means an exact science. Are those MU nose doors found on all ACL units... when were they installed; did they last until the end of the units life...?

f/ Misinformation: Recently I was told by a Historical society that in no uncertain term that their RR did not roster a particular type of locomotive..... who am I to argue with them.... except I had pictures of it. I sent them the pictures to which they promptly informed me that it wasn't a "x" unit (which I had called it) but it was a "y" unit..... terminology - the RR called them one thing and the builder another.... this is just one example of how misinformation car creep into a research project. Opinion, legend and stories can become readily accepted fact over time and if you aren't careful you can get caught building a foobie based on learned council.....

g/ What can you afford to make as opposed to what you'd like to make: Production costs eventually come into it. Maybe it's a decision about those nose MU doors... they look like crap as an add on part.... to mould them in means a new nose slide and "x "thousands of dollars of extra cost. Will the project bear that? Will the "x" road modellers accept the nose without the doors ? Will they support the project with the new nose enough to pay for it...? Maybe it's a question of too many variations - you just can't cover all the variations local shops made, so you pick and choose, hoping that you don't miss one that hardcore fans deem to be important.... It might be that to do "x" means that you can't do "y and z" on the same slide so you have to choose.... We all work backwards for the MSRP and eventually you run out of room in the tooling budget for extras and add on's..... you either live without or don't make the road (s)..... and suffer the slings and arrows of either.

If it sounds like I'm complaining, I'm not. I'm reflecting on what I've learned in this project to research a possible new product. I learned a great deal; dismissed a few "facts" I thought I knew and learned a bunch of stuff  didn't. I have more questions than answers right now and am more determined than ever to "get it right".... but I think it's important to understand that "just looking at pictures on the internet" isn't going to get it done. The work I have been doing is fun and I hope will be, some day, rewarding when you get a model as a result of it. But the next time someone says "why can't they get it right" please consider some of what I have offered here..... it's not as easy as opening up your browser....

[bbussey]

True dat.

[pjm20]

All I have to say is remember that you got us! You can ask a few customers for help or information on something, and I think I can say this for everybody  , and we'll gladly help in the research.

[eja]

Slow day at the office Pud?

 

Interesting and informative commentary ... thanks for taking the time....

eja

[wcfn100]

Every so often you will see a comment like this "why can't manufacturers just get it right"?

Most of the time I remember reading something like that, the error or issue could easily be found via web search or some other documentation.  Outside of color,  I remember very few instances that the item in question was really subjective, only that it didn't bother some people as much as others.

As for timeline changes, that's why we need undecorated kits.

Jason

[nkalanaga]

And...it applies to making, or selling, almost anything.  Even book and record stores (remember those?) had to make choices in what to stock, because they couldn't buy, or store, everything that any customer might want, even if it was available.

[C855B]

I see one issue immediately in doing online search engine research - you spell "color" wrong.

[grinning, ducking and running]

[Missaberoad]

I see one issue immediately in doing online search engine research - you spell "color" wrong.

[grinning, ducking and running]

What you talking about, eh?

[Puddington]

I see one issue immediately in doing online search engine research - you spell "color" wrong.

[grinning, ducking and running]

Take off ya hoser!

[johnb]

Oh, it gets worse. I am an admin on an Espee group on Facebook. Someone posted a picture of a white SPFE reefer with a green Southern Pacific logo, fortunately a member of the group was a painter for the SPFE and he knew the truth.

These cars with different colored sp logo's were painted in tucson.  At the time the spfe was trying to save money & we used whatever color we had, some days Blue, some days red ect. we painted 8 cars a day.[\quote]

[peteski]

I understand that manufacturers will never be able to offer all variations of a loco or boxcar.  My complaints are of much more achievable nature.    Things like too-deeply engraved features, or some very simple and doable modification the the mechanism which would greatly improve the running quality and reliability, or some small change (non-road-specific) to the shell which would make a much better model.

EDIT: I like to add that in many instances I will still begrudgingly buy a model which has some of the above mentioned flaws and either live with some flaws which cannot be easily fixed (like using an old-school mechanical design when a widely-accepted  and proven-reliable low-friction mechanism is used by majority of other manufacturers) or fix or improve them.  But I just don't understand the logic of that type of design choice.

[jdcolombo]

It's interesting to reflect on what I find a "deal breaker" in a model and what I don't.  Many years ago, I bought 4 LifeLike PA-1's decorated for the NKP, based upon HO photos of their model.  Well, it turned out that the HO model had the correct front-angled numberboards, but the N-scale model didn't - they used the side numberboards.   This just absolutely drove me crazy.  Plus they didn't have the Mars light installed above the headlight.   I considered these two items major "spotting features" for an NKP PA, and I finally got parts (the numberboards from Kato; drilled a hole for a turned-down 3mm LED for the Mars light) to fix 'em.  But I never paid attention to the wrong horn on the top; the not-quite-correct ladder detail, etc. 

A similar thing with the LL NKP Berkshires.  They lack the Mars light that all the NKP Berks sported after about 1949.  Almost any "famous" photo of an NKP Berk in service has the Mars light.   But the number of sand lines are wrong for some of the road numbers; later Berks had roller bearings on the trailing truck, etc. - none of these things bother me, but the lack of a Mars light drives me mad.

The Atlas NKP GP9 TT's released a few years ago had the wrong size for the logo on the side (it was too big), but the killer was that the front and rear stripes came to a point, instead of being flat across the flat spot on the geep's nose and rear.  The logo stayed; the front stripes got scraped off and fixed.   Other details on the units were wrong (the boiler stack, etc.) but I've never felt the need to fix these things. 

Tony Koester would probably faint at some of the inaccuracies I just don't pay much attention to.   So for some modelers, having a "rivet-perfect" model for a specific date is the holy grail.   For me, meh.   I want the major spotting features correct; after that, I can live with a lot of variation.

It would be nice if manufacturers would get the ride height correct on rolling stock; but honestly, I just don't care much about that.  I care much more about getting a car weighted correctly, because that affects operation in a major way.   I think all couplers should be body-mounted, so I've changed all mine, but I have plenty of friends who use MT Bettendorf trucks with couplers and are happy as clams.   Some folks find the factory-sound installs in the Athearn Big Boy and Challenger the bees-knees; I think it's pathetic and have changed all the speakers.  And so on and so on.

To each his own, I guess.

John C.

[nkalanaga]

"To each his own, I guess."  Very much so.

I've long claimed that there are three main hobbies in Model Railroading: 

The "railroad modelers", who build models of railroad prototypes, and are commonly called the rivet counters.

The "model railroaders", who want to build and operate a miniature railroad, and don't much care about exact detailing, as long as everything works perfectly.

And the "collectors", who don't care about details or operations, as long as they can acquire all of the variations in their particular interest.

Of course, most modelers are a combination of the three, in varying degrees.  For instance, there's the "model railfan", who wants the models to be accurate enough to look right at normal viewing distance, and to run right so the trains can be watched without worrying about stalls or derailments.  And everyone seems to be a "collector" to a certain extent!

[sirenwerks]

+1 on Jason's comment on the need for undecs. For those of us that are bothered by a little thing, its easier to work with a clean slate.

Also, the comments about HO model photos standing in needs to be hammered home. Please let me see the actual product I'm buying. That way I know whether to buy a pre-painted model or the undec.

And a + to the idea that !manufacturers need to reach out to the intended consumer base for help. It's free QC, don't knock it, just wear your thick skin suit that day.

Manufacturers do need to understand that gone are the days that simply releasing a product in a favorite paint scheme is going to make people happy. And that the internet makes complaint, or conversely consumer advocacy, much easier.  Gone are the days of snail mail LTEs to warn fellow purchasers of problems.

Bryan

[basementcalling]

I dunno, Puddington, why can't the manufacturers just get it right?     Maybe because everyone has a different definition of correct? Offer an engine based on one road's "shell," and those who modeled a line with different details scream. Used to be people either didn't notice the "mistake," didn't care, or knew it and simply fixed it themselves on an undec version and painted their own or touched up a decorated unit.

Scale width hoods? Never cared or knew they were too wide on most older Atlas offerings until I joined here. Still don't care much. They ran great and looked fantastic for the time period compared to previous offerings.

Maybe the problem isn't the manufacturers, it's the over demanding customers who want all the "work" done for them. I used to enjoy adding wipers, grabs, and such to engines. Now not so much with over 40 eyes, plus with more and more of the previously "add on" level details being factory installed, it's harder to modify a model if the factory detail is wrong, or doesn't look as good as an after market add on part.

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. Atlas seemed to do this with winterization hatches on their SD60s.