[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PC: New Product Announcement - PC Class N6A/N9 Transfer Caboose
- Subject: Re: PC: New Product Announcement - PC Class N6A/N9 Transfer Caboose
- From: "Chris Osterhus" <su_carbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:04:10 +0000
I couldn't have said it better, Mike.
When I was at the last convention all of the models (with the exception of
my 1/25 scale maintenance-of-way trucks) were HO scale. So, it was only
natural that the PCRRHS would offer an HO scale car. When I got the
announcement the other day, I didn't think there was any "scale envy." I
dabble a little with N scale myself... To sum up, I think the PCRRHS made
the best decision by appealing to the masses.
>First, the society's modeling committee and trustees had to be reasonably
>sure that the project would be successful, i.e., the project would sell
>models to provide the means for the society to pay all costs involved
>to bring the car to market. Buy the way, all costs to produce the car from
>scratch, design, casting, etching, acquisition of additional parts and
>etc. were borne by the society. Hopefully the sales of the caboose will
>the society to proceed with plans to produce additional kits in the future.
>Many societies or clubs that produce cars pay a manufacturer like Accurail
>Athearn to pad print a car for which the manufacturer has already recouped
>his costs. The manufacturer charges the club/society a cost (discounts the
>undecorated car and charges for printing, packaging and shipping). Can you
>imagine what a club or society would have to sell a kit for if they had to
>underwrite the R&D, tooling, packaging, advertisement and all other
>The decision to produce the kit in HO only was based on the fact that the
>preponderance of modelers (inside and outside the society) is in HO scale.
>has been documented time and again by statistics in the modeling press. To
>have undertaken the costs to produce the kit in any other scale, versus the
>anticipated sales would have probably resulted in either the cost of the
>be prohibitive (compared to other kits in that scale, e.g., N scale) or for
>society to have lost a significant amount of money. The decision was a
>simple one of costs versus anticipated sales. It was safe (and fair) to
>that the society would probably sell at least twice as many kits in HO as
>would in any other scale.
>Perhaps other larger societies like the UP, B&O, ACL/SBD or PRR, that have
>been around a lot longer, and who have several thousand members, could have
>undertaken a multi-gage project. The PCRRHS, as I mentioned, is relatively
>and steadily growing society. Perhaps at some point the society may
>multi-gage modeling project. For now our decisions to produce models have
>be sound economic ones.
>I am sorry that you feel that there is a modeling bias in the modeling
>committee. In this instance there may appear to be a bias and, if so, it
>necessity, not by design. I can sympathize with the fact that it appears
>gage, as well as O, S TT, Z and the larger gages, have less models produced
>than HO. I would have to believe that this is so due to basic economics.
>or any of the other scales had the majority of modelers, then perhaps your
>would be true if you were modeling in HO.
>While it is unfortunate that the N6A/N9 transfer caboose could not be
>as a multi-scale project, I am hopeful that your interest reflects a larger
>interest in the PCRRHS. If you are not presently a member, I would invite
>to join and (bring other N scalers into the society) so as to be more
>representative of your interests.
>Thank You for Your Interest,
>Modeling Committee, PCRRHS
Main Index |