There are two problems with the products today: The products are made cheaply, and although modelers complain, we do very little about it.
I think that if the interiors of trains were made mostly of metal rather than plastic, like the postwar trains, then they'd run much better. However, in order to make the trains as quickly as possible, and somewhat cheaper, they cheated and use mostly plastic parts. Actually if I ever get time, I'd like to start making trains completely from brass, by pass any defect in quality.
Using metal not only would solve a lot of the gear breakage problems, but it would also add heft to the models and would give better traction. So it comes down to the modelers, not the company. Companies would make better products if modelers demanded better. Instead, we buy something, have it break on us, complain on an online forum, and then go buy something else. Also, at least in other scales, many people kitbash and scratch build, especially if a product isn't up to par. What we ought to do instead is that when a product breaks, send it back and tell the company to do better. If enough modelers do that, eventually the manufacturers will get the picture.
By the way, in large scale there is a manufacturer: Hartland Locomotive Works, that makes trains in G scale at a great price. While most locomotives in that scale are around $400, Hartland makes a Mack locomotive that typically sells for around $50.
And just so you know, it is one of the best 4 wheel diesels on the market.
So yes it is possible to build something in the USA, make it cheaply, and have it be reliable.
By the way, for whoever said that people only work for the government and no one's and engineer: I'd like to say that I am an electrical engineering student at South Dakota State University along with 30 another Electrical Engineers, 150 Mechanical Engineers, 160 Civil Engineers, and 60 other engineering students, and that's just in my class out of 1,200 students. This is an agricultural school, and 1/3 of my class are engineering students. The School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City has about 65% engineering students, and don't get me started on other states.
I plan to work for either a power company, General Electric, or for one of the 7 major american railways. Will many of us work with the government? Yes, especially civil engineers, but few of us will ever work as a government employee.
As for costs, it comes down to life being too expensive in general. A Consumer unit (think of the average american family) has an expenditure rate of $51,000 a year in 2012 on average. Roughly half are spending more, roughly half are spending less. This rate is probably 3-4% higher for 2013.
If someone was tightening lug nuts for $12.00 an hour 40 hours a week for 50 weeks of the year, they'd make $24,000 a year. Most of us have families, so not only don't we want to work for that little, anyone who has kids can't work for that little.
When I get out of engineering school and pass the major exam, and have about 4 years of apprenticeship under me, I will make about $60,000 or slightly higher. And the sad part is that I will be one of the higher paid employees in the job market.
All of this is without costs employers spend on employees.
Personally, I'd rather be paid more straight out than have more benefits. I can get health insurance on my own, and I am smart enough to figure out retirement. So I don't need anyone to do that for me, as long as I get paid enough.
If employee costs really are $250,000 per year, if employers paid $100,000 grand a year and then cut benefits which the employee could pay for on their own, then perhaps we'd also spend more?
But enough economics, why don't we get back to trains?
--James
