Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 12:03:21 GMT -8
ALL MODEL RAILROADERS NEED TO SEE THIS NEWSLETTER FROM JASON AT RAPIDO. It has pictures of the factory - VERY INTERESTING, the QC process AND THE REASONS WHY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE PRODUCTION OF OUR TOYS WILL REMAIN IN CHINA. www.rapidotrains.com/rapidonewscurrent.html
|
|
|
Post by rhpd42002 on Aug 6, 2012 13:23:20 GMT -8
Thanks for the link, Jim.
Can't get any better than direct from the manufacturer's "mouth".
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Aug 6, 2012 13:39:32 GMT -8
I scrolled through that quickly before I leave the office.
One word - WOW! Jason - yo da man! You almost make me wish I were Canadian! Heh heh. Well, it's too darn cold up there in the great white north but lovely train and great job!
|
|
|
Post by onequiknova on Aug 6, 2012 13:59:44 GMT -8
An interesting look behind the scene. Now, what happens to all those defects? Dumpster diving that factory's dumpster looks like fun.
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Aug 6, 2012 14:00:35 GMT -8
That's the way to do business. Treat it like everyone involved from factory to customer is important. Because they all are, no matter where they live or what flag flies over their factory, shop, or layout. As they like to say on a famous Canadian TV show "We're pulling for you."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 14:13:42 GMT -8
I thought the "lets bring production back to North America" part of the newsletter was the best. Finally AN ACTUAL MANUFACTURER has come clean about the time and cost of assembling a complex model.
Not that Jason has to spill all his company's secrets, but it would be interesting if he gave some ball park figures as to the time and cost of tooling up a locomotive or passenger. Also, what is the minimum number of units that must be manufactured. Back on the old Atlas Forum we used to post page after page of our locomotive "wish lists". I think we would be mightily surprised how much a manufacturer must INVEST UP FRONT to bring a new model to market.
|
|
|
Post by valenciajim on Aug 6, 2012 14:42:20 GMT -8
Excleent post--very insightful.
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Aug 6, 2012 17:05:02 GMT -8
Jobs are NOT coming back to the USA. It just isn't going to happen. Too expensive labor. Too much regulation, legal issues, rules, fees, taxes, etc,etc. Never mind union and health care. Those jobs are gone and they ain't comin' back.
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Aug 6, 2012 17:29:09 GMT -8
I just hope Jason continues to do well, I'm pullin' for him. Can't wait for the FA project they are working on.
|
|
|
Post by johndmock on Aug 6, 2012 18:36:53 GMT -8
I thought the "lets bring production back to North America" part of the newsletter was the best. Finally AN ACTUAL MANUFACTURER has come clean about the time and cost of assembling a complex model. Not that Jason has to spill all his company's secrets, but it would be interesting if he gave some ball park figures as to the time and cost of tooling up a locomotive or passenger. Also, what is the minimum number of units that must be manufactured. Back on the old Atlas Forum we used to post page after page of our locomotive "wish lists". I think we would be mightily surprised how much a manufacturer must INVEST UP FRONT to bring a new model to market. Jim it is virtually impossible to do what you are suggesting here. My friend Lee English of Bowser does not track research and development costs of models. If he did, it would likely make him ill, lol. Designing and building these models, for those who do it, is a passion. The research and development costs are variable from one project to another--and for a small business like Bowser or Rapido, r&d is completed in between answering phones and other customer service tasks--so this would make it very difficult to track and accurately "bill" the time. When I inquired from Lee back in January or so of 2012 what his tooling costs were, he very honestly had no idea--they cannot be easily tracked. He indicated the Chinese quote prices based upon how many units of what model one is going to build, and the research and tooling to get to that point are simply not tracked (plus much of the r&d and tooling development is done here--exactly how much I'm not privy to). The best we were able to come up with was an estimate of approximately 10 to 11 hours manufacturing time to fabricate and assemble a new from the ground up HO diesel. This estimate actually seems to compare somewhat favorably to Jason's estimate (see the link above) of 7.5 hours time to assemble a passenger car. So 10 or 11 hours for an engine, if anything, might be on the low side. Using standard markup percentages for the distributors, dealers, etc., an assumption of $1000 MSRP for a new from the ground up plastic bodied diesel made entirely in America with suitable (not the cheapest) labor is not at all out of line. It's just that very few people in online forums want to believe that--and again, the $1000 MSRP depends on how many fine road specific details, etc. are on the model--along with which model of which engine one chooses to make. Even at only $700 or $800 how many American made single unit diesels could be sold? Not many...not when Bachmann can crank them out for much less. John
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Aug 6, 2012 18:38:03 GMT -8
Actually, in certain industries there is quite a bit of talk about "reshoring".
It'll probably be years before the model RR industry does however.
|
|
|
Post by johndmock on Aug 6, 2012 18:46:07 GMT -8
Oh sure--there's plenty of talk about reshoring right now on multiple model train forums.
However, this is a rather small industry and will not be one of the first to come back.
Just because some parts are still molded here does not mean the final assembly will be brought back anytime soon.
John
|
|
|
Post by rapidotrains on Aug 6, 2012 18:52:44 GMT -8
Thanks for the kind words, guys.
I, too, have heard a lot about companies that have made a success of it manufacturing over here. In fact, if you look at the auto industry and similar heavy equipment manufacturing (such as railcars and locomotives) it never really left.
The problems of domestic manufacturing arise for hobby products that have such small production runs. My father used to be a supplier of sportswear for Wal-Mart Canada. He could easily have an order for 300,000 pieces. Wal-Mart USA places orders ten times the size of Wal-Mart Canada. That 300,000 order would more likely be 3,000,000. In comparison, a really successful locomotive today will sell 3000-5000 pieces.
If we could sell 300,000 of any one thing we could certainly look at domestic sourcing opportunities. But it's not likely going to happen. There aren't enough model railroaders out there.
Rubbing my crystal ball, I think that in 30 years our hobby will be much more of a cottage industry, with home-made kits outnumbering the ready-to-run models. It will look more like the UK model industry of the 1970s than what we have today.
It will thrive, but it will be a smaller industry than it is now.
-Jason
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Aug 6, 2012 19:28:03 GMT -8
Thanks for the kind words, guys. I, too, have heard a lot about companies that have made a success of it manufacturing over here. In fact, if you look at the auto industry and similar heavy equipment manufacturing (such as railcars and locomotives) it never really left. The problems of domestic manufacturing arise for hobby products that have such small production runs. My father used to be a supplier of sportswear for Wal-Mart Canada. He could easily have an order for 300,000 pieces. Wal-Mart USA places orders ten times the size of Wal-Mart Canada. That 300,000 order would more likely be 3,000,000. In comparison, a really successful locomotive today will sell 3000-5000 pieces. If we could sell 300,000 of any one thing we could certainly look at domestic sourcing opportunities. But it's not likely going to happen. There aren't enough model railroaders out there. Rubbing my crystal ball, I think that in 30 years our hobby will be much more of a cottage industry, with home-made kits outnumbering the ready-to-run models. It will look more like the UK model industry of the 1970s than what we have today. It will thrive, but it will be a smaller industry than it is now. -Jason Jason First, thank you for the link and news about the China trip and the pictures. Your products certainly have set new standards and the video of the rebox testing is great! I would tend to believe our industry will go full circle and be a smaller industry than it is today as you have said. We always asked for more production back in the late 1970 era and beginning in the early 1990 era, we started to get a lot more items that were ready to run or close to that. The first P2K rail cars and then the Kadee cars gave the hobby industry a new wave of items that were never available prior to that time as mass produced items. Your latest passenger cars and now complete train is amazing in detail and I want to thank you for getting such a nice product to market. I don't have any idea of how many sets you sold, but there has to be a limited market for any train of that size and price. I purchased the Selkirk by Sunset last year in brass but most Canadian steam is expensive and very few will be offered in plastic in the future. The larger companies are depending upon China completely now except for a few Korean built models in brass and die cast metal. I hope they are able to continue but like many other modelers, I have stopped purchasing new brass models the last two years or so. Why purchase a museum quality brass item when plastic models are being made available that are comparable and more than often recently, many of the new plastic models are even better in detail. Thanks again for sharing information. Larry
|
|
|
Post by buffalobill on Aug 7, 2012 16:54:46 GMT -8
Jason: Thanks for the link, looks like you enjoyed your trip. I am afraid you are right about the changes in the Industry. The old line Manufacturers such as Atlas and Athearn (Horizon) have stopped manufacturing, and starting becoming Distribution Channels. It will be interesting to see what develops, and how the Model Railroaders needs are satisfied. I am not sure many of us really want to go back to the bad old days. We sometimes forget how good we have it now. Bill
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Aug 7, 2012 17:24:55 GMT -8
The old line Manufacturers such as Atlas Actually, Atlas has never manufactured anything other than fiber tie track in the USA. Starting in the 60's they imported European models, then Japanese and now Chinese. (A couple Korean items.) Even the track has been made abroad for 40 some years. An argument could be made that Atlas showed the industry how to work with foreign manufacturers to produce a product to Atlas's specifications. I'm curious to see where they go next.
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Aug 7, 2012 17:28:28 GMT -8
Hey Jason, by the way, I LOVED your blog from China.
Keep it coming. Good stuff.
Your F unit looks awesome.
|
|
|
Post by umtrrauthor on Aug 7, 2012 18:02:29 GMT -8
The old line Manufacturers such as Atlas Actually, Atlas has never manufactured anything other than fiber tie track in the USA. Starting in the 60's they imported European models, then Japanese and now Chinese. (A couple Korean items.) Even the track has been made abroad for 40 some years. That is quite inaccurate. In N Scale, between the "First Generation" imported from Europe (Roco, Rivarossi and Mehano) and the move over to China, the "Second Generation" of freight cars was made in the USA. Track was also made in the USA. I also have about a dozen sticks of HO Scale plastic tie flextrack right here in the basement marked "Atlas USA". I bought them in the late 1980s with a plan for a layout that never panned out and I'll probably resell them at some point. And then, there's the Snap-Saw-- the "Tool" in what used to be called the Atlas Tool Company...
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Aug 7, 2012 20:08:57 GMT -8
Thanks for the perspective, Jason. Can't wait to see those future freight cars you mentioned in the newsletter. I'm still hoping for those NSC newsprint box cars!
Dave
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Aug 7, 2012 22:46:21 GMT -8
Back on the old Atlas Forum we used to post page after page of our locomotive "wish lists". I think we would be mightily surprised how much a manufacturer must INVEST UP FRONT to bring a new model to market. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised, as I've seen and heard some really outlandish numbers over the years. I've been doing cost accounting software for somewhere around 35 years, everything from steel fabrication to general contracting/construction to itty bitty brass hex nuts made by the half million. Costing and pricing drive these businesses... do it wrong, and you're dead. Of course they all do it wrong sometimes, but losing money on one job isn't the end of the world. Losing money on every job, well - can't make up for that in quantity. Anyway, one does not need a huge amount of experience to do simple arithmetic. I presented some simple arithmetic on the Atlas forum which was roundly disputed... but I'll try again. Work it backwards. Let's use Jason's numbers, the high end - that 5000 locomotives are a good run. At 200 bucks apiece - retail - that's a nice round one million bucks. Realistically though, unless you're Exactrail (which has yet to produce a locomotive) and selling 100% direct, the actual revenue to the manufacturer (importer) is going to be half that. So those locomotives are going to bring a gross of $500,000 to the manufacturer. Out of that money come the out-of-pocket costs. We won't get into full amortized costs - those are somewhat BS for a small company anyway, the OOP is what makes or breaks a deal. And the OOP costs consist of fixed costs and variable costs. Variable costs are multiplied by the quantity produced, and they include raw material - metal, styrene pellets, paint, chemistry, paper and packaging materials, and direct labor paid to the people who run the molding machines, do the assembly work, paint, pack, inspect, etc. Fixed costs are costs that are the same whether you make 1 locomotive or 1 million locomotives. This includes the time spent on R&D - paid to employees or consultants, travel expenses, drafting and programming, cutting the molds whether contracted out or done in house, and all of the labor intensive work that must be done before going into production, as well as the setup costs to begin production. The R&D portion is still done primarily in North America for North American prototypes - the knowledge base is not there in China. But after that, everything else can be done in China, both fixed and variable. It's the fixed expenses that eat up resources and require a minimum production quantity in order to make ends meet. Wild guess here - if the fixed expenses are $100,000 and the variable expenses are $15 per unit, then the cost to make a run of 5000 models is $175,000 or $35 apiece. But if the run is only 1000 models, the cost is $175 apiece. These are made up numbers, but you can clearly see that if only 1000 are made, the retail price is going to have to be closer to $500 than $200 to be worthwhile. Lastly there's overhead, which is the cost of keeping the business going regardless of production. Building expenses, rent, utilities, salaries to administrative personnel, etc. In really big businesses, all fixed expenses and overhead are amortized into a final unit cost, and a target selling price / wholesale price is derived from there, or more commonly, the target prices are set first and the equation is worked backwards to a mandate that "we have to build it for X dollars or less, or we're not doing it". In small businesses, I've found that full amortization is something that comes out in the year-end financial statements and tax returns, as a bottom line number, but applying it to each job or production cycle is not really practical, as it can create a distorted view of the bigger picture. I've worked with dozens and dozens of accountants and CEOs and COOs and CFOs and they like to have those numbers, but they make their decisions based on expected revenue vs. out-of-pocket costs. In particular when demand is ahead of capacity, and they must choose to do job A or job B. The one with the biggest gross contribution - revenue minus OOP costs - wins. I've had a voyeur's view of all of this - I've seen some winners and some losers, and through it all, I saw all the numbers. I have never dealt directly with the model RR industry, except for one that was a parts supplier off and on... but manufacturing has common concepts across the board. I've often felt that I know enough to become a manufacturer myself, but I also know the risks and it's just not a good fit for my personality... the up front investment is not something I'd be willing to put up, even if I do believe it's frequently overstated in the model RR business. I can't start a manufacturing company because I don't have the capital to invest in the equipment and physical plant that would be required. But I could start a software company, because I know how to write software - because I *am* the product, I can start with virtually nothing. I did it before, and I could do it again. This is the position Chris Clune was in when he started Exactrail... he didn't have "tooling costs", just his own time. I couldn't afford to pay me to write software, and Chris couldn't have afforded to start Exactrail if he had to job out the tooling. But if I wanted to market my software to a large audience, I'd need capital - as Chris went for the outside investor to put his personal product into full production. What I'm trying to get across is that there's really nothing mysterious about any of this. One does not need a detailed cost breakdown to make an educated guess as to what a product costs. Working it backwards from the selling price is going to give you a pretty good idea of a target per-unit cost, and if you can estimate the sales figures, you can probably make a pretty educated guess as to the fixed and variable costs. Have manufacturers gone way overboard on costs? Sure. Athearn famously scrapped thousands of warbonnet shells that the plating was screwed up on... cheaper to scrap them than to try and strip the plating. At the stage they were at - molded and plated - their cost was still fairly low. Now if they were scrapped after the entire run was assembled, painted, and lettered... they're not just throwing away some styrene and machine time and a batch plating run but hundreds of hours of labor. I dunno which it was. In the end they took the hit to make the quality of the finished product better, and it was a good decision for the long term because the Highliner/Genesis F units have been huge sellers over many production runs. If you do full amortization of all the costs for a new run today, the per-unit cost that represents what was paid to Paul Lubliner for the tooling is probably about a buck per shell. And because that deal was done and over with 14 years ago, the more they make, the more that number goes down. I'm always distressed by the short term thinking in business today. There's no pride in building something and growing it into a legacy. The effort is to pump it hard and fast and sell out or IPO. I admit, if someone had offered me a million bucks for my software company back in 1992, I'd have said where do I sign. And the money would have all been gone by 1998... LOL. Instead I kept the company going until 2004... could have kept going longer, but life changed, I had other opportunities. Running a business is not just about getting rich - you become an employer, a builder - you're responsible for the work you do for your customers and for paying your employees, keeping it legal and legit, paying your taxes. It's a big responsibility, with potentially big rewards. I'm disgusted by people who skim the rewards off the front end, and screw their employees and investors and customers and vendors alike. They don't think there's anything wrong with what they did. Andy
|
|
|
Post by alco539 on Aug 8, 2012 5:21:18 GMT -8
A question for the group.
When "most" model train production moved from Europe (Rivarossi, Roco, etc.) some US (Atlas), and then from Japan (Kato, forced US companies away!). The only player was Bachmann in China (Hong Kong) at first, mainland later. I assume that other US importers eg. Atlas, sought out and developed factories in China, like Rapido has done. Or did they come to them?
I assume that China was looking for business opportunities. China embraced the model train business, but now maybe they don't need it or want it. It's been discussed on this and other forums that the factories can make more profit on other products. Have the US importers set themselves and model train hobbyist up for a fall? Worse than what we see today? I hope not a re-hash.
As Andy discussed, the factories in China have no "legacy" to build, it's all "business" to them and of course they have that right. I won't toot the "bring back to US" horn. It's been blown to long!
I don't want to start a fire-storm, but I was out of the hobby when this transition occured. Back in my day, Bachmann was Hong Kong and that was it. I've learned a lot on the forums about some of "what happened", but many pieces are missing.
Regards Charley.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Aug 8, 2012 6:38:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Aug 8, 2012 8:47:30 GMT -8
I won't toot the "bring back to US" horn. It's been blown to long! The key to bringing the hobby business back to the USA is automation and robotics. The skilled labor necessary to produce the product we're getting from China is going to cost as much as 5x here, even with China's wages increasing. If you can substantially reduce the labor intensive part of the product manufacturing, it levels the playing field considerably. This would require re-engineering how the products are designed and assembled to optimize for machine production. So unlikely that the tooling currently being run in China would adapt itself to automation. We're talking new products, and probably a new company as nobody currently producing in China is in any position to build a new hi-tech plant in the USA right now. There's also (gasp) kits. Kits require the same R&D and engineering as an RTR product. And tooling. But they don't require any assembly labor or painting. I'm talking undec kits, the only real kits- deco kits have their own set of challenges because parts have to be painted separately, on sprues, etc. The machine time to run plastic production is probably not cost prohibitive to do in the US. And the labor aside from setup and tending the machine is going to be collating and packing the parts. That requires a lot less skill than assembly work, and can be done using scaleable (i.e. temporary) workers. Andy
|
|
|
Post by johndmock on Aug 8, 2012 9:23:51 GMT -8
Andy--
Re: tooling costs
At one time I worked for Bowser--20 years ago now.
Their tooling costs at that time--just to develop all the dies and tooling necessary to produce a new from the ground up locomotive (PRR M-1 and M-1A 4-8-2 for real world example)--I was told well exceeded $300,000.
Now, today that same locomotive, though a fine model is available from BLI in plastic (as opposed to zinc Bowser) probably is going to have similar tooling costs. Certainly, with all the detail expectations today, it would be reasonable to assume the tooling cost would actually be higher than years ago, and not any cheaper. BLI's version contains a number of very nicely executed additional details that probably add production cost over and above what Bowser's version (introduced about 24 years ago) featured.
So, in your cost example, if $300,000 is invested in tooling before any materials and assembly are considered, a $200 MSRP is just not going to work. There's not enough money left to pay for all the other associated costs.
That's why a locomotive, if built in America, pretty much regardless of what it is, is going to be $800 MSRP or more.
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Aug 8, 2012 10:12:02 GMT -8
Andy-- Re: tooling costs At one time I worked for Bowser--20 years ago now. Their tooling costs at that time--just to develop all the dies and tooling necessary to produce a new from the ground up locomotive (PRR M-1 and M-1A 4-8-2 for real world example)--I was told well exceeded $300,000. Now, today that same locomotive, though a fine model is available from BLI in plastic (as opposed to zinc Bowser) probably is going to have similar tooling costs. Certainly, with all the detail expectations today, it would be reasonable to assume the tooling cost would actually be higher than years ago, and not any cheaper. BLI's version contains a number of very nicely executed additional details that probably add production cost over and above what Bowser's version (introduced about 24 years ago) featured. So, in your cost example, if $300,000 is invested in tooling before any materials and assembly are considered, a $200 MSRP is just not going to work. There's not enough money left to pay for all the other associated costs. That's why a locomotive, if built in America, pretty much regardless of what it is, is going to be $800 MSRP or more. Certainly the cost would be high as you have said and probably even more than the $800. True the cost of tooling has always been high since it requires a high skill in the art of making the tooling correctly. I was wondering if the CAD programs and other software now speeds up the process and if the tooling machine work is actually quicker now if it is run under process control by a computer. That certainly would shorten the time and perhaps the cost of the project. Granted, the inflation in the last 20 years would still increase the basic cost of a project to 300 thousand or more per model and that along would require thousands of models to be produced and sold to amortize the tooling and engineering costs into the final sale price. $400,000 divided by 10,000 models is only $40, but many of the latest model imported are probably much less in numbers than 10,000. Brass production numbers were for the most part secret stuff for many years. After the first Brown Book was released, many of the production numbers were listed in cooperation with Ray as he was researching the project at the various vendors. It was my thought they released many of the files to him so the prices of rare items would be justified by the list. I would have to guess, but my thought is Bachmann imports the most models since the sale prices are always about one half off the list. The blowout sales make me believe they always import more than the standard reservations, much like both Athearn and Atlas produced at one time back in the 1990 era. Along with the fact they now own a large factory in China means they have to keep it busy in order to maintain the production. Their latest B&O EM1 is a perfect example of their products having been over produced. It is a nice plastic model that was never produced prior to this time except in brass and it sold well, but many were and are still being discounted big time. I will give them a lot of credit for bring this model to us. Larry
|
|
pappy
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by pappy on Aug 8, 2012 10:44:29 GMT -8
I was wondering if the CAD programs and other software now speeds up the process and if the tooling machine work is actually quicker now if it is run under process control by a computer. It has! Over the past 30 years of being in a tool and die shop I've seen the parts get more complex and tolerances get tighter with the aid of CNC, CAD, 3D modeling. With newer, faster, deadly accurate equipment we can and do compete with china. We just have to work smarter, faster, and weed out laziness!
|
|
|
Post by calzephyr on Aug 8, 2012 11:33:40 GMT -8
I was wondering if the CAD programs and other software now speeds up the process and if the tooling machine work is actually quicker now if it is run under process control by a computer. It has! Over the past 30 years of being in a tool and die shop I've seen the parts get more complex and tolerances get tighter with the aid of CNC, CAD, 3D modeling. With newer, faster, deadly accurate equipment we can and do compete with china. We just have to work smarter, faster, and weed out laziness! Great! Thanks for the reply. So this is my question. Does the new technology in the past twenty years make the process a lot faster and what is the price for a comparable item being made the manual process compared to using CNC for the tooling? Your expertise with other products should give us an idea of what the cost savings might be. Larry
|
|
|
Post by johndmock on Aug 8, 2012 14:11:14 GMT -8
I use the latest cadd programs for a living. Though light years ahead of where we were when I started (in civil engineering) 20 years ago, the projects take longer due to ever increasing client expectations, numbers of alternatives studied, and sustainable design requirements. Sure the cadd programs promise great efficiencies--but design is still design and things don't design themselves.
I've been a firsthand witness to how the models--and their design/tooling--have improved over the last 25 years since I used to perform the casting, drilling, and milling. Rapido, BLI, Bowser and the others achieve stuff in plastic that wouldn't have been considered or even attempted much less thought possible back then. However, it likely takes more time for every new model than it used to--because the manufacturers are doing/including more features than ever before. The buying public (or the loudest ones) demanded the additional features. I vividly remember when Bowser sent their N-5C caboose dies back to the die man to make the rivets larger because they discovered the exact scale size rivets got hidden by the thinnest paint film they could apply.
The wild card here is research and development time. In a model train project, there are many hours of R&D time before you ever get to the tooling stage--then there's revisions even as tooling progresses. The level of research, photo study etc. before you even get to the cadd drawing stage is truly enormous.
I can say with absolute certainty that Bowser's Lee English, Rich Cox, and others have countless hours into the C-636 project--that were not tracked and at least to some extent were not foreseen when it was originally announced. During tooling development they learned stuff about the prototype engines that nobody in the modeling community had noticed or discussed in print before. I only know this because for months it seemed every single time I visited the store they were busy studying photos and every printed resource available to them between customers.
|
|
|
Post by buffalobill on Aug 8, 2012 14:34:56 GMT -8
I think Jason has a very valid point, we can substitute capital and technology for part of the process. But we all may well be forced to become Modelers again, and do the painstaking assembly ourselves. Expending effort, just like real modelers like Andy do now. Instead of just signing the credit card receipt on the assembled and painted stuff from China. Like the spoiled collectors like me do now. Bill
|
|
|
Post by johndmock on Aug 8, 2012 14:49:40 GMT -8
One would have to include me with the spoiled collectors now.
The other thing is many people lack the time even if they have the modeling expertise. The younger generation, raised on more video games than my generation, generally speaking doesn't even have the expertise, and the average American who is fortunate enough to have a job is working more hours than in many decades. It will be more difficult for them to become "modelers" than past generations.
I offered to help my son build a pirate ship model (he loves pirates) and his response was basically "why would I want to do that?". I was dumbfounded.
John
|
|