Re: PC: New Product Announcement - PC Class N6A/N9 Transfer Caboose

["Chris Osterhus" <su_carbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

--Chris Osterhus

<snip>

>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 
>enough
>models to provide the means for the society to pay all costs involved 
>required
>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 
>decals,
>etc. were borne by the society.  Hopefully the sales of the caboose will 
>allow
>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 
>or
>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 
>associated costs?
>
>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.  
>This
>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 
>kits to
>be prohibitive (compared to other kits in that scale, e.g., N scale) or for 
>the
>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 
>assume
>that the society would probably sell at least twice as many kits in HO as 
>they
>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 
>new
>and steadily growing society.  Perhaps at some point the society may 
>consider a
>multi-gage modeling project.  For now our decisions to produce models have 
>to
>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 
>is by
>necessity, not by design.  I can sympathize with the fact that it appears 
>that N
>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.  
>If N
>or any of the other scales had the majority of modelers, then perhaps your 
>view
>would be true if you were modeling in HO.
>
>While it is unfortunate that the N6A/N9 transfer caboose could not be 
>offered
>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 
>you
>to join and (bring other N scalers into the society) so as to be more
>representative of your interests.
>
>Thank You for Your Interest,
>
>Mike Bradley
>Modeling Committee, PCRRHS