Is parts standardization needed?

I say go! It's great for everyone! Just look at the Auto Industry!

That today is the major problem why it's so hard to get parts for something. Also that drives the cost of a item up as they have to have new tooling to make that part that goes to left instead of to right per-say. 

Today a lot are so concerned with accuracy to the real item. So that's why you have so many items with so many parts being used for one type of a engine and you end up so many parts you really can't keep them in stock as not enough room for all of these parts ,So they only make enough to build what they want to build. 

While a certainly good goal, I'm not sure if this is achievable or not anymore.  Runs of trains are so small and parts tend to be outsourced to various bidders throughout the engineering phase of a project.  Things like couplers, wheels, specific details and other components will typically be acquired from multiple vendors due to timing, budget, and capacity of any given vendor.  The goal to have the next feature also probably has something to do with a lack of standardized parts. 

Standardization would certainly be nice.  No disagreement from me there.  My solution is sometimes to find a duplicate unit and put it away for a parts source down the road.  Not ideal, but it does work.

Put me down for someone else who is all in for parts standardization. Do people consider this a plus for older models? Does it actually scare people off from newer models?  I'll admit to buying backup gaming systems (think PS2 and Wii) for when my original unit decided to give up the ghost, and I still had tons of games that I played frequently ... but I did that when the systems were being phased out and were on deep, deep discount (and I didn't have a wife and kids to further drain my checking account). But for a $300+ dollar train? I'd be hard pressed to do that nowadays at that price, for parts. I know it's like insurance (it seems like a foolish expense until you finally need it), but still ...

If you want the same engines built year after year or at least using many of the same parts then most of them will be less accurate than they are now.

"If you want the same engines built year after year or at least using many of the same parts then most of them will be less accurate than they are now."

Yes. Many or even most of those old models made from a larger number of standardized parts were inaccurate, to be kind, partly because of that, and I would not buy any of them today. Like it or not - and I do - the 3RO world is no longer mostly about "toy trains" - it's model railroading.

Also, many of these modern locos and cars do indeed use the same tooling for internal and "close-enough" chassis and the like. Freight car trucks in the real world came/come from multiple manufacturers with different appearances, but our RS runs on pretty much 2 styles. "Bettendorf" is not a type of freight truck - it is a brand name. (Kind of like calling all 1970 US sport coupes "Barracudas".)

I did notice years ago what does seem to be a "seriously?" moment when I compared the frames and so forth of the Lionel Dreyfuss Century Hudson (the die-cast one) and the Lionel Dreyfuss ESE Hudson. One would think that they would have just put different die-cast "pretty parts" on the same chassis - like the NYC actually did. No. Apparently different parts and frames. I guess maybe different builders supplied them.

Also, tooling today is so easy, accurate, quick and cheap to do compared to 1950 that ground-up designs are not as daunting as they once were.

Had tooling been cheap in 1950, I dare say that there would have been less standardization then, too.

I would be all in on this.However people demand specific Trains in the correct form.It is harder to do than we think it is.Nick

I have not had issues finding parts I need. I'm not gonna be the guy to tell the other guys building it how to do their job, there's plenty of that all ready. Just look at the police. Everybody can always do it better. I know I don't like it when some Johnny Come Lately walks in and starts telling me how to do my job. I think the manufacturers are doing a pretty good job with products and parts support.

In a sense the move towards scale fidelity has caused this as someone else wrote. It is very hard to standardize parts, a can motor is one thing, but the parts for the drivers and valve gear on a locomotive are going to be a lot more specific and not shareable.  Companies aren't going take time and resources to produce extra parts beyond a certain amount, and third parties aren't going to do it either (the auto industry third party market works because parts are often common across makes and models so there is a reason to produce the parts), not to mention parts are often used for years and years. 

Back in the post war era it was very different, because they weren't for the most part scale but rather "representative", so the parts for a berkshire likely were shared with a another type of engine, the leading/trailing trucks were kind of generic, the valve gear was often re-used and so forth. And they made the units for a lot of years, re-issued them, so parts are available, whereas there is so much less common between units these days. 

While the prices of todays trains are not inexpensive, they are really a throw away design with non serviceable motors, circuit boards and such.  Gone are the days when an engine could be "restored" by the average modeler or any decent hobby shop.  Now is all just parts replacement, new motor and new circuit boards if available.  If not your up the creek lacking a paddle till a solution comes along.  Where as with my older Lionel, a quick phone call or point/click/pay and the parts are on the way.    Mike the Aspie   

Gentlemen,

   Part standardization might be good for the part finder, however not for advancing the engineering of new and better equipment.  With computers today you should be able to find just about any parts you need world wide.

PCRR/Dave

I would be happy just for industry standardization of working knuckle couplers in the 3 rail hobby.  REALLY!

Dennis

GG1 4877 posted:

While a certainly good goal, I'm not sure if this is achievable or not anymore.  Runs of trains are so small and parts tend to be outsourced to various bidders throughout the engineering phase of a project.  Things like couplers, wheels, specific details and other components will typically be acquired from multiple vendors due to timing, budget, and capacity of any given vendor.  The goal to have the next feature also probably has something to do with a lack of standardized parts. 

Standardization would certainly be nice.  No disagreement from me there.  My solution is sometimes to find a duplicate unit and put it away for a parts source down the road.  Not ideal, but it does work.

In their Scale F unit line it seems Lionel has used 3 or 4 different (and incompatible?) motor/truck combinations.

Sure.  Check out the automotive industry.  A lightbulb burns out?  Get a GE 1157.  A hydraulic line breaks? #4 inverted flare and some copper tube.  Somebody steals your gas cap? They are all the same.

That came to a screeching halt over a quarter century ago.  Not even fuses are standard any more.  There isn't any way that standardization will happen on model trains - they are more expendable than autos.

MARTYE, but that is just it all we seem to be seeing is the same old model types done over and over again just updated with the  next big thing.  One major reason I'm going back to Post war, MPC & other older and easier to fix products.  Cheers and Merry Christmas.  Jim