Bob, What did the Vision Line UP cost?
What year was it cataloged as I would like to read more about it? Thanks
this thread certainly has strayed in many directions from its start! So a few directions in one posting:
Writing for mags: Yes, S Gaugian (and the Dispatch) only "pays" by sending the author a few extra copies. CTT does pay for articles--even those they don't print! (I wrote one years ago, S-G rejected it, CTT accepted it & paid me, and then never published it!--the pay was worth about 2 years subscription; which is what I did with it!). Thankful there are folks like Bill who gladly contribute to the hobby by writing for the mags.
Gilbert tooling: I have heard many stories about the tooling. The L company at the time snapped up the tooling to prevent it being used in competition with their product. At the time they claimed it was all "junk" and "destroyed"--however, they ran some injection runs of gons and boxcars for others at the time, and when they re-activated the line, the original tooling was used! What tooling was usable probably delegated what was produced those first two years (Yes, they did have to make electronic reverse units and modify the ACG motor fields to a double winding). After that, L did invest in some re-engineering (can motors) and probably mold making.
True, much of the ACG tooling is not useable in today's manufacturing processes, nor does much of it meet detail requirements of the current marketplace, especially the plastic Atlantic & Pacific boilers. ACG also had the "luxury" of large-scale production; much larger production runs than today's market will support. However, the ACG engineers were very clever in producing common-usage parts that were universal across their product line. Consequently, steam locos had two different sized drivers (we will ignore the design variations through the years here--flanges, pullmor, tire OD, etc.) something that most modelers today would not find tolerable. But there were a lot of hidden parts that were identical; smoke unit bodies, motors, reverse units, and even upgrades to most of these designs were backward compatible. ACG also made lots of spare parts for servicing (another luxury of large-scale production).
Today's production is basically "short-run" production. While I see some commonality to parts, especially in the diesel line, the steam line appears (from my limited view) to be locomotives individually engineered, each one almost from scratch. I hope I'm wrong! When the Challengers came out, I was hoping to be able to buy "parts tenders" to upgrade the tender on my Big Boy. I think with the tender and trailing truck swap out, the locomotive would look much better, and work on ACG track (mostly clear the action car activation rails).
OK, pause here for my big complaint--Apparently the production folks at "Big L" don't or didn't test ideas in the real Traditional S world; Alco metal steps that strike the activation rails (because they added them onto the very late production shells with molded on steps, so the metal steps are too low), action car contact "fingers" that are too stiff and lift the car when they go over the activation rail; The Big Boy trailing truck and tender that also are too wide and strike the activation rails (I know, it was a "low-budget" rework of the K-line tooling, but this error could have been corrected in production with little added expense). I know they can get it right, because my Y-3s and my PE locos run great and clear stuff.
Others have complained about car trucks falling apart--my only experience with that was when I tried to change out the wheelsets in my Chessie Bay Window caboose, the stamped metal didn't bend at all, it just broke--the steel is way too brittle for that application.
So, with the short-production runs of today's market, stuff IS more expensive, and selections can be limited. We've actually seen quite a variety of equipment considering that. the only way I can see production costs being cut is by a commonality of parts.
Wow, so the metal diesel was a long 7 years ago. How many owners and managers has Lionel had since 2009. It is interesting that it was not repeated.
Roundhouse Bill posted:Wow, so the metal diesel was a long 7 years ago. How many owners and managers has Lionel had since 2009. It is interesting that it was not repeated.
Same owners and two CEOs.
In the 2011 Signature catalog, four more die cast Gensets in additional road names were offered. Every time Lionel does a new GG1 electric, traditional or scale, it is die cast. M.T.H. has a die cast 44 tonner in the wings. To be sure, it is not an everyday occurrence, but when a company wishes to do an extra special non-steamer, they may elect to do it in die cast. The value proposition for the Gensets involved abundant features and quality construction, not a low price. It is nice to have a choice once in awhile.
Bob
Roundhouse Bill posted:Jonathan: That isn't at all what that means. It just means that they will consider what they build very carefully in terms of tooling cost and perceived demand. They know from the FlyerChief Berk that the market for that engine is there.
There is supposed to be others in the works but I was not told what they were.
I'm not particularly interested in a Legacy Berk. Maybe, but I have about 10 other engines I'd rather have first. I also have zero interest in anything with FlyerChief or molded details. So I am almost certain Lionel will not be making any scale steam engines that would interest me in the future. That's why I said yes to a plastic engine. If that's what it takes to get the costs down to actually make scale detailed steam again then I'm all for it. The alternative is that I'll be playing in a different scale. I wish it were different, but at some point you look around at your options in different scales and make your decision. I'm a scale guy. I don't like Flyer, could live with HiRail, but prefer scale. So I'm probably not the target demographic that Lionel is looking for responses from I suppose.
Roundhouse Bill posted:Francine, call them at 708 366 1973 and they can set you up with a subscription via credit card. It will save you time and get you a magazine quicker.
Thanks
Hi Bill,
Called the number with my credit card and the lady told me you can't order by credit car over the phone, check or money order via mail.
I will get a card from my friend who is a subscriber and fill it out.
Francine
You can actually just mail them a check with a note about which magazine subscription you want. Instructions are on their website:
http://www.heimburgerhouse.com/s_mags2.php
Dean
Sorry Francine, I have bought there (Scenery Unlimited) with a C Card before. It is the same place. My guess is that they don't want to pay the CC % charged for the transaction.
jonnyspeed posted:Roundhouse Bill posted:Jonathan: That isn't at all what that means. It just means that they will consider what they build very carefully in terms of tooling cost and perceived demand. They know from the FlyerChief Berk that the market for that engine is there.
There is supposed to be others in the works but I was not told what they were.
I'm not particularly interested in a Legacy Berk. Maybe, but I have about 10 other engines I'd rather have first. I also have zero interest in anything with FlyerChief or molded details. So I am almost certain Lionel will not be making any scale steam engines that would interest me in the future. That's why I said yes to a plastic engine. If that's what it takes to get the costs down to actually make scale detailed steam again then I'm all for it. The alternative is that I'll be playing in a different scale. I wish it were different, but at some point you look around at your options in different scales and make your decision. I'm a scale guy. I don't like Flyer, could live with HiRail, but prefer scale. So I'm probably not the target demographic that Lionel is looking for responses from I suppose.
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately in preparation for starting a new layout this Fall. I think I've softened a bit on what I wrote here.
I realize that for some inexplicable reason I keep getting drawn back to considering S. So I will say this, not that it matters, but I'm probably going to buy anything new that Lionel produces with Legacy. If they make a Berk then so be it. I'll have two. An SD40? I'll take a couple of those too. What I really want to hear from Lionel is that they have not given up on Legacy S and they will be making something in the future. If they would just address that publicly I would feel much better about things. As for MTH, I have no idea what they are up to. Here we are 4 years after they bought SHS and we still don't have an engine from them. They aren't doing much new tooling in any scale these days and I have to think that S is the low man on the Totem pole. I'll buy F's and switchers, and 2-8-0's from them if they ever get around to making them. I'd probably buy just about anything newly tooled that they put out as well.
I hope I'm not setting myself up for a disappointment, but I'm really thinking of building a HiRail version of an HO plan that I like this Fall. Lord help me...
Is that issue of the S Gaugian out already?? Haven't gotten my copy yet.
Well, guess I have something to look forward to--but it's frustrating watching y'all talk about it!!
I would love to read it, but I don't subscribe and they aren't for sale anywhere around here. If I want to subscribe I have to send a check via mail and wait. I really wish there was a digital option. I don't buy print anymore.
***Edit*** I see that there is a phone in option as well. I'll do that tomorrow.
So it appears a legacy Berkshire will happen.
Jonathan: You have to send a check to subscribe to the S Gaugian as they do not take credit cards over the phone. Sorry but they say the expense in employee time and credit card fees make it unreasonable for telephone subscriptions.
___________________
Hey, I write the articles and I haven't got my magazine yet either. Publications have the snail-mail slooows.
Bill
That's just crazy--I'll bet they'd take your credit card if you bought some trains from their store (Scenery Unlimited)--after all, they're the biggest "advertisers" in the magazine!
I see that Modeltrainstuff.com stocks the magazine. I'll just wait until they get the latest issue and buy from them.
I`ll have to get this Issue, all of the Lionel/American Flyer and MTH Issues have been very interesting. I missed the Polar Express interview and I`ll have to see if I can get that issue too. Thanks for these interviews.
Jonathan,
send me an email off line, email is in my profile.
Ben
NotInWI posted:Jonathan,
send me an email off line, email is in my profile.
Ben
Thanks Ben. Mike A took care of me 
I have to say, I'm a bit puzzled after reading the article. I simply do not understand if so much of what actually gets made is BTO, then why not show some matching passenger cars or modern era rolling stock and see what happens? Why would I buy ES44's (I actually did - a PWR & Dummy, refer to my signature for an explanation) or an SD70ACE and have nothing to run behind it! Everything seems so reserved and almost continually in a state of being premature. Andy Eddleman kept referring to the F3's as a bench mark for what the "market" will do, yet how many times have those been pushed back? O.k. so am I supposed to preorder something else when I cannot even see what is supposed to be coming next? Oh wait, MTH won't even give me that chance because THEY are waiting to "see what the F3's do" If Andy is using the F3's sales performance as a guide and they are not out, how can he accurately answer any of those questions that Bill posed to him about what is in the pipeline?
I have to be honest, after 5 years of this "well maybe we will do this or maybe we will do that, we will see what the market does" S**T, I'm really getting fed up with both Lionel and MTH. Both of them kept referring to "confidence in the S market". At this point, I have WAY more confidence in the S market than I have in either MTH or Lionel to make anything that I would want to buy.
I still have MTH flyers for a S scale SD70ace and F3's that they left on an unattended table at the National show in Chattanooga several YEARS ago! I can still find the Lionel catalog with the mechanical reefers that got cancelled so abruptly. Hmmm...would BTO have changed any of that? I seem to recall hearing a lot of guys on here saying they did have one on preorder. " We have to see if we have confidence in the S scale market" Seriously? How about you: 1.) Actually make something and 2.) make sure the trucks work. WOW, Stunning! I wonder how Gilbert ever managed to even make a train! To me the bottom line is this, both Lionel and MTH expect us to pre-order with real money for trains that may or may not exist. If not, it is too risky for THEM!!! Indeed, who exactly needs to have confidence in who?
Lastly, in an attempt to end on a positive note: despite my rant above, I am in for a flyer-chief Northern. Make mine Milwaukee, please. At least I'm not a hypocrite in regards to my signature! And a BIG THANK-YOU to RH Bill for producing the article.
From what I remember about my conversations with Lionel is that BTO means confirmed orders for a product that still needs to make the MOQ, minimum order quantity, in order for them to make a profit. IE: a low number of committed orders for a BTO item ain't gonna do it.
That's why I don't see why they don't make up a CGI of a loco, say SP4449; they know what the average COP (Cost of Production) will be based on similar locomotives, so they can announce a price and advertise it as BTO. If they don't get enough orders to meet the MOQ, they can just cancel it. Who knows, we might surprise them with lots of orders. IF we don't, well then they're only out the artwork and publication costs; most of which will be shared with the other product in the catalog.
My take on the interviews:
Lionel: Somewhat admits feeling the sting (finally) from the truck fiasco on the cylindrical hoppers. But it seems like they will do nothing to relieve the sting and wait for it to go away.
MTH: Everything depends on acceptance of the F3's.
Sigh...
My overall impression from both is "Wait and see..."
I'll be interested to see what Lionel has in the way for a traditional type car that the Scalers would be interested in. (They might of had something if the waffle side boxcar was a true 50' model...)
As far as MTH is concerned: Folks have been waiting patiently and impatiently for the F3's to finally show up. The market can't "accept" what isn't available and multiple missed delivery dates hurts. I hope the F3's live up to what Andy indicates. Personally, if I didn't have the funds set aside for them, I probably would've cancelled my order by now.
Rusty
I made a decision last fall to build an O gauge layout instead of S gauge, in part because of MTH's failure to deliver the F3s.
Rusty Traque posted:My take on the interviews:
Lionel: Somewhat admits feeling the sting (finally) from the truck fiasco on the cylindrical hoppers. But it seems like they will do nothing to relieve the sting and wait for it to go away.
MTH: Everything depends on acceptance of the F3's.
Sigh...
My overall impression from both is "Wait and see..."
<snip>
Rusty
Decades of experience leads me to reluctantly agree with Rusty.
Long ago, I came to heavily discount prognoses in magazines about future products for S. Heck, the catalogs, themselves, are subject to some degree of carelessness in their assembly and to eventual severe revision. It is one of the reasons I make the semi-annual pilgrimage to York. One can ask questions and make suggestions directly to the responsible personnel and note both the answers and the body language of those involved, the latter of which rarely gets translated into the interviews. Some of the suggestions made by fellow TCA attendees and by me have made it to production, so I count the trips as having been worth the effort. I only count something as a 'nearly sure thing' when it finally shows up close to delivery on the southwestern wall of Orange Hall.
In the meantime, enjoy what you have.
Bob
I have to say, I'm a bit puzzled after reading the article. I simply do not understand if so much of what actually gets made is BTO, then why not show some matching passenger cars or modern era rolling stock and see what happens? Why would I buy ES44's (I actually did - a PWR & Dummy, refer to my signature for an explanation) or an SD70ACE and have nothing to run behind it! Everything seems so reserved and almost continually in a state of being premature.
__________________________________________
Troy, The whole of it "Tooling Costs" for all new items not made with earlier tooling. Build-To-Order in all gauges is the state of the Lionel process for all products requiring new tooling. Unless there are enough preorders they are not going to invest the money in the tooling. If you want something preorder it so you have a chance at getting it. Now Lionel is making very few new items over what dealers and customers preorder. If you wait and hope to get one after they come out you may miss out.
The Nickle Plate Berk is a good example. It was so popular it was out of stock almost the day it was in stock.
Passenger cars are very expensive to make a run of even with their tooling. I asked about cars to match the new Frisco Northern and Lionel told me it was unlikely they would be made because of the minimum order needed to be manufactured was so high.
I hope this helps you understand their business perspective.
Is Lionel saying that:
1) Passenger Cars are more expensive then making a Northern engine?
2) That these Passenger Cars required new tooling as opposed to using existing passenger car tooling?
3) The minimum order required for passenger cars is greater then the minimum order of the engine itself?
I would think someone at Lionel is confused unless the answer above is #2, and if so I would suggest that they use existing tooling to make the cars as they would sell.
--Rocco--
When you talk heavyweight cars, I would think Lionel could get away with making them in road names in which they have more than one model locomotive in prototypical road name. Example, three challengers, one mikado, two northerns (soon to be three) have justified heavyweights in UP livery.
If I recall right, the heavyweights also were dressed in Pennsylvania and NYC (and polar express) also examples where Lionel has multiple locos made in both road names. I think Lionel is not likely to make passenger cars for only one example of a road name/loco combo, such as for the new Frisco F/C northern.
That being said, seems they could do a Milwaukee Road, southern, and Pullman green set and be safe in their sales numbers. (And I would be in on 2 of the 3)
Ben
Rocco posted:Is Lionel saying that:
1) Passenger Cars are more expensive then making a Northern engine?
2) That these Passenger Cars required new tooling as opposed to using existing passenger car tooling?
3) The minimum order required for passenger cars is greater then the minimum order of the engine itself?
I would think someone at Lionel is confused unless the answer above is #2, and if so I would suggest that they use existing tooling to make the cars as they would sell.
--Rocco--
Methinks Lionel has become very risk adverse.
Rusty
NotInWI posted:When you talk heavyweight cars, I would think Lionel could get away with making them in road names in which they have more than one model locomotive in prototypical road name. Example, three challengers, one mikado, two northerns (soon to be three) have justified heavyweights in UP livery.
If I recall right, the heavyweights also were dressed in Pennsylvania and NYC (and polar express) also examples where Lionel has multiple locos made in both road names. I think Lionel is not likely to make passenger cars for only one example of a road name/loco combo, such as for the new Frisco F/C northern.
That being said, seems they could do a Milwaukee Road, southern, and Pullman green set and be safe in their sales numbers. (And I would be in on 2 of the 3)
Ben
Ben,
The very first run of heavyweights was in UP livery. I bought a set and just recently sold it since I don't have any UP power, and am very unlikely to ever get any. Lionel is also very unlikely to redo the UP cars either. I bought the cars simply for their "first issue" value, which wasn't all that much. A few years ago they teased us with a C&O Berk with a C&O freight consist and a Berk passenger set in green Pullman livery. Neither one was made. Knowing their history in S, I'm not surprised.
Attachments
Images (1)
Jerry
Even when they pitched that C&O set they did not pitch it well. Anyone who knows O and S gauge (let alone a company that makes both) would know that that was a picture of O gauge under sized passenger cars. CANT believe Lionel spent the money on the ink to catalogue that nonsense.
Ben
Well, this is an interesting "stand" they are making--what justified the Alton & Pacific set they made years ago? Very nice set, but not a "Major Railroad" with nationwide interest. That was back when I was "working regular" and I have that set. Well, as usual, we'll just have to wait & see. BTW, my S-Gaugian still isn't here!
Call me crazy (most folks do!), but I think if they were to make a nickel-plated streamline California Zephyr set (with vista-dome on the observation car) in any of the three participating railroads, they'd fly off the shelves. They could even re-issue the Rio-Grande PAs to go with it (that would also be prototypical!). The tooling exists!!! (well, except the hole in the roof for the dome on the obs car)
Thom Hodgson of American Hi Rail did a CZ dome obs (decorated body only, bring your own underframe) years ago to go with the WP set...
And also did a baggage car (also BYOU, never did repaint the trucks...) long before Lionel did.
Rusty
Attachments
Images (2)
Rocco - Your answers.
Is Lionel saying that:
1) Passenger Cars are more expensive then making a Northern engine?
NO but a minimum run of passenger cars is more expensive than a run of engines. Because more cars are made in a minimum run than a minimum run of engines.
2) That these Passenger Cars required new tooling as opposed to using existing passenger car tooling?
NO new tooling is needed for the passenger cars.
3) The minimum order required for passenger cars is greater then the minimum order of the engine itself?
YES as above.
I would think someone at Lionel is confused unless the answer above is #2, and if so I would suggest that they use existing tooling to make the cars as they would sell.
NO confusion as this is a business and with the imbalance between minimum runs would leave them with an inventory of passenger cars that would be hard to liquidate at a profit. In addition one Chinese company makes the cars and another makes the engines.
I hope this helps your understanding of Lionel's profit considerations.
That being said, seems they could do a Milwaukee Road, southern, and Pullman green set and be safe in their sales numbers. (And I would be in on 2 of the 3)
I would definitely be in line for the Milwaukee Road cars and Locomotive.
Ray
Bill, you bring up some good points--EXCEPT! A production run of passenger car bodies is much less complicated than a locomotive; body, floor, some wiring and trucks, and then painting. Yes, the time it takes to set up a mold and molding machine has to be offset by the number of parts molded. However, if you mold them in one color of plastic (black would be good, light doesn't pass through it well) you can have bodies 'on hand" to be painted in whatever scheme is needed. The problem is, the manufacturing isn't done "in plant" where the extra bodies can be stored until needed, and the finishing line was also "in plant." That's how it was done in the 'old days' when product was thought to be made long-term, not as needed production as is done nowadays. The "as needed" production increases production costs, but decreases storage costs. The loser in the long run is the end user, who cannot maintain his purchase due to a lack of repair parts (which formerly could be procured from stores being held for the next production run).
In either case though, cost per item of production of passenger (or freight) cars is MUCH less than locomotives. The cost of a bare body for a car is under 50¢ (not counting the tooling production costs, which varies depending on the amount of bodies one can amortize it over). The expense lies in the trucks, finishing, and packaging (and shipping, duty taxes, etc.)
David: Read what I said as it is simple. You are making it complex. The expense is not about the pieces of a car or the cost of an engine it is about the cost of a minimum run of the product.
A run of a product is not the type of product. Each road name of an engine or passenger car is a separate run.
If Lionel doesn't think it can make a profit on a "product run" they won't manufacture it is what I was told by Lionel.
Bill
Rusty Traque posted:Thom Hodgson of American Hi Rail did a CZ dome obs (decorated body only, bring your own under frame) years ago to go with the WP set...
<snip>
Rusty
Unfortunately, the images are not showing, but for the observation car I believe that that you mean ....
Bob
Attachments
Images (2)
Bob Bubeck posted:Rusty Traque posted:Thom Hodgson of American Hi Rail did a CZ dome obs (decorated body only, bring your own under frame) years ago to go with the WP set...
<snip>
Rusty
Unfortunately, the images are not showing, but for the observation car I believe that that you mean ....
Bob
Yep, that's it. I don't know what happened to my images, they were there last night. I'll try reloading them tonight.
*update* The pictures are showing up on my home computer but didn't on my pc at work: here's another try with resized versions:
Rusty
Attachments
Images (2)
