Jan makes a most important point. While the trend toward "order only,"
small-run production may be understandable in terms of US tax law, the
economics of manufacturing, and the changing demography of our model
railroad community, none of that should be allowed to justify sub-par
models; and if we are expected to pre-pay for these limited-production
models, we need some protection (other than the old "caveat emptor")
against shoddy goods or misrepresentation.
Let me be clear that to me "sub-par" or "shoddy" does not mean simple,
basic, crudely detailed, or generic (i.e., undifferentiated as to specific
RR prototype). I don't expect the same level of prototype accuracy or
detail inside an Athearn "blue box" as I do in a CIL silver-gray box. But
that's understood in advance, which is why I feel fine about reserving and
pre-paying for anything from Challenger, Railway Classics, et al. At the
opposite end of the spectrum, if a large-production-run company like
Athearn or MDC offers a shake-in-the-box 40' "AAR" boxcar in five dozen
road names, including Burlington, C&S, and FW&D, I don't begrudge their
getting the doors and dreadnaught end patterns wrong for my road or anyone
else's. Nor do I resent their cast-on grab irons or other crude details.
But again, I know all that when I walk into the hobby shop. The price of
these modest kits is right, and they have a legitimate and valuable
function for almost all modelers. And they can fulfill that function and be
offered at that price only by their manufacturers making just such
compromises.
All of which is fine. What's not so fine is when companies allow products
to go to market with obvious flaws or inaccuracies that could have been
prevented with only minimal effort and reasonable care on their part and
thus would cost them little or nothing to prevent or correct. It is
especially offensive when the company in question is trading on a past
reputation of high-quality workmanship and accuracy. I certainly wouldn't
demand or expect Life-Like/Proto 2K (I think it was them) to produce a GP-9
or SD-7 that had prototypically perfect Burlington features (e.g.,
headlight position) when it's part of a small production run that includes
a bunch of other railroads (same argument here as above for Athearn's
boxcars). But I would expect them at least to paint it accurately -- which
apparently they did not -- and to stand behind their work and correct their
error -- which apparently they would not do (forgive me if I have the
specifics wrong in this example; there was discussion about this some
months back, and I don't have time now to track it down). A similar
complaint might be directed against the recent Walthers Trainline RPO,
which was close to the CB&Q's class MA-11. Here again, the model was
offered in several road names, so it would be unfair to expect Walthers to
make the model totally correct for the Burlington (e.g. to have roof ribs
instead of a smooth roof). But is it too much to ask that they at least
letter it with the correct car numbers for that class? I'm sorry, but such
cavalier disregard for accuracy strikes me as irresponsible at best, and at
worst disrespectful of the modeling community, to the point of
exploitation. The fact Walthers, not renowned for its great concern with
prototype accuracy, now has acquired Life-Like doesn't exactly fill my
bosom with confidence, any more than the fact that Intermountain and other
companies are moving to an Order Only system.
And there are serious structural barriers within the hobby "establishment"
to the dissemination of fair and accurate criticism of these models. The
fact (pointed out on another discussion group hereabouts) that Walthers is
THE major advertiser with the trade magazines like MR and RMC embodies
implicit, if not explicit, coercion against such criticism. When was the
last time you saw a negative, or even what you might call, a "balanced"
review of a Walthers product in one of these publications? To be fair,
negative reviews of any model railroad product are exceedingly rare, and
that is probably just a contradiction built into our hobby that we have to
understand and accept. It's not simply a problem of the mags, especially
the big ones, relying on advertisements to survive and therefore being
unwilling to bite the hand that feeds them. It's that the entire hobby
relies on manufacturers (some of them pretty small-scale and low profit
margin, i.e., folks doing it mostly as a labor of love) to keep producing
what we want and need. A bad review can have a devastating impact on a
manufacturer, psychological as well as financial. Moreover, in a small
community such as ours, it's inevitable many of us know one another, and
it's tough saying negative things about the work of someone you personally
know and like.
Yet if we really care about our models, our modeling standards, our hobby,
and each other, that is exactly what we must have the courage to do --
which doesn't mean we should get nasty or disrespectful about it (and I
recognize that I have tread close to that line in some of what I said
above). But it's certainly possible to write constructive criticism that
sticks to the facts. And if the trade mags won't do what they should in
this regard, it falls to discussion groups such as ours to accept the
responsibility. That, indeed, is one of the main things that makes this
group so important. The informal reviews of new products that members
sometimes post here (e.g., Ray Bedard's excellent comments on the Walthers'
RPO) have been enormously helpful to me in trying to decide what to buy,
and I hope they will continue.
If this pre-order, pre-pay approach is really the wave of the future, then
-- whatever the risks -- we must not be afraid to hold companies' feet to
the fire when they screw up badly, and we should not be cowed by the threat
that if we make too much of a fuss they may take their toys and go home.
Yes, it certainly is a risk, but it is also probably our best hope, maybe
our only hope, that they'll get their act together next time 'round.
And with this new system, we also should demand companies adhere to high
ethical standards in their marketing -- equivalent to what we expect from
brass importers who work on an "order only" basis and charge premium prices
for the promise of an accurate and well-made model. That means a
willingness on the part of companies to make good on their errors -- either
through a generous return policy or a willingness to correct problems at no
cost to the consumer. I think it also means we have the right to fair
representation and more information about the products in advance if we are
asked to pay, or commit to paying, in advance. A major reason I never
ordered one of Con-Cor's new Zephyrs (besides having to watch my pennies
these days) is that I never could seem to find a photo of a pilot model --
just a painting of an idealized train.
Thank you, Dave, for allowing this thread to continue. The issues Jan
raises are of the utmost importance to us as Burlington modelers, and the
people on this list are the people whose knowledge and perspective I trust
more than anyone else. If we can't discuss these problems here, where can
we discuss them?
Jonathan
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|