Steve Featherkile said:
Victor Smith said:
Get ready for “Made in Somalia” ?Yeah, but it would probably just be pirated, though.
(http://lifeinthemiddle.typepad.co.uk/life_in_the_middle/images/head_in_hands.jpg)
:lol:
Victor Smith said:Logically and logistically Somalia is fairly far down on the list. You need a government of some sort to provide the stability and infrastructure to support the sweat shop factories. It costs too much to start from scratch, they'd might as well build it here.
Get ready for "Made in Somalia" ?
Look instead for a country with:
- A large harbor (s) - natural or already extant manmade.
- A largish population of indigent people willing (or who could be forced) into near slave wage work conditions.
- Some form of centralized (and buyable) government.
- Easy accessible to resources - such as fuel - or already having works/plans in place for large scale electrical generation.
- Not a lot of civil unrest.
- Water, lots of water.
We’ve already outsource a LOT of tech no-support to India, there’s one likely candidate. I already mentioned Cambodia. Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Myanmar (Burma), and Vietnam are all possible, but not super likely due to current political realities. Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Brazil might have been ripe - except after a century plus of botched US gunboat diplomacy and CIA games down there, they might not want to play along. Which brings us to Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and good old Singapore where there are already textile factories.
If you insist on going to Africa - Senegal recently broke it’s long standing ties with Iran. Camaroon might work too - if you could afford the bribes. Kenya and Tanzania on the East are also possibilities. Somehow, like Somalia, I doubt Yemen or Angola could even MAKE the list, nor would the Ivory Coast or Ghana… at least not until the others have been milked dry.
Mik said:Victor Smith said:Logically and logistically Somalia is fairly far down on the list. You need a government of some sort to provide the stability and infrastructure to support the sweat shop factories. It costs too much to start from scratch, they'd might as well build it here.
Get ready for "Made in Somalia" ?Look instead for a country with:
- A large harbor (s) - natural or already extant manmade.
- A largish population of indigent people willing (or who could be forced) into near slave wage work conditions.
- Some form of centralized (and buyable) government.
- Easy accessible to resources - such as fuel - or already having works/plans in place for large scale electrical generation.
- Not a lot of civil unrest.
- Water, lots of water.
Sounds like it is ready-made for the US of A. Lord knows we need the work!
Steve Featherkile said:#2 is the "deal breaker" (supposedly) for on-shoring. I'm just not sure that turning large parts of the US into a third world country is the answer.... (Though lately it seems some folks actually salivate at the idea.) Besides, I'm not sure that even the illegals would work for less than what they could make at home.....
Sounds like it is ready-made for the US of A. Lord knows we need the work! :P
Mik in regards to issue #2, I dont know about that…ever wonder WHY we have had no realistic immigration reform since Ronnie Raygun in '86??? Having a sizable but vote-less readily available below min. wage labor force has been very very profitable for certain very well connected industries and businesses and they have been operating a lobbying delaying action for the last 20 years. Illegal immigration was never a real hot-button issue as long as it was contained on the border states, it didnt become a super hot-topic until they started showing up in places like Georgia, Maine and Indiana. This not a red state gun toting conspiricy buff saying this, but a blue state tree-hugging liberal, I have seen this going on here since the '70s . They wouldnt be there if someone was not hiring them…they do not just show up, and if they cannot find work, they eventually leave. That has been the pattern since Cheech & Chong used El Migra back in their routines in the late '70’s.
Mik said:That might work better than the fence! :lol:Steve Featherkile said:#2 is the "deal breaker" (supposedly) for on-shoring. I'm just not sure that turning large parts of the US into a third world country is the answer.... (Though lately it seems some folks actually salivate at the idea.) [b]Besides, I'm not sure that even the illegals would work for less than what they could make at home.....[/b]
Sounds like it is ready-made for the US of A. Lord knows we need the work! :P
I think we are missing one critical ingredient to this issue. “Its the economy, stupid” (That was a quote, not calling you stupid.)
I think Bachmann has seen that there are more modelers in the 1:20.3 scale than 1:22.5. They are trying to produce a model that will appeal to more of the market or at least have a larger audience. I dont know anything about the last actual release of a 1:22.5 scale model from Bachmann, but I wont disput your 15 year timeline. But, like Vic and I said it is the modelers that are driving the market, someone or some group is making enough noise to say they want a fully featured locomotive and want it in 1:20.3 scale. Since there are less modelers buying right now, because of the economy, then Bachmann is forced to try to please those that are making the most noise.
Don’t discount the significance of the collector market in Large Scale either.
I firmly believe that a scale model collector will not seriously consider anything but proper scale models.
With mainline prototype 1:32 has a big collector following. I don’t know of many 1:29 scale models that are regarded as collectible.
It is the same with 1:20.3 so it is easy to understand why Bachmann only ever expand the 1:20.3 range.
As nice as 1:22.5 models may be they are not the correct scale for USA 3’ Narrow Gauge prototype equipment on 45 mm gauge track.
If I recall, I believe Bachmann said they’d announce new large scale products at the NY Toy Fair. What that means in terms of actual products is anyone’s guess. Like most here have said so far, though, I seriously doubt we’ll see anything “new” in terms of 1:22 stuff. I think they’ve committed simply to live and let live with that product line. If I were to guess as to a possible direction for products (and with Bachmann, any guessing is usually completely wrong) is that we’ll see a trend towards smaller 1:20 locos that will “look good” with the 1:22 stuff. Think along the lines of the Climax, 4-4-0, etc.; locos that were smallish locos on the prototype, but could reasonably pass for medium-sized locos in the smaller scales. (Again, this is Bachmann, and in terms of my batting average guessing what they’re going to do next, I couldn’t make a little-league team.)
As for comments relative to Bachmann’s “rubber ruler,” they’re actually fairly rigid as manufacturers go. I’ve compared a number of their models that are based on known prototypes to drawings, and they’re usually within a few inches in each major dimension. (There are some exceptions, like their 3-bay EBT hopper.) Their passenger cars are short, but in terms of height and width, well within the “norms” of narrow gauge passenger equipment when measured at 1:22.5. The reason much of their product line looks good in 1:29 is because narrow gauge stuff tends to be about 3/4 the size of standard gauge stuff, so it does a good job “standing in” as standard gauge equipment at a smaller scale. Mike O’Malley kitbashed a handful of B’mann passenger cars into more appropriately-long 1:29 coaches, and they don’t look too bad. Put in a train with 1:29 heavyweights, they look larger, but by themselves, it’s a credible wood-sided passenger train.
Later,
K
I think its also important to point out that when Bmann re-released the Porter, they retooled the body and physically upscaled it from 1/22.5 to 1/20.3. I think that really points which direcrtion they want to go, I was really surprised they didnt upscale the cab on the rereleased Indy to something more like the Banta-works recabbing kit
I’m hearing of serious discussions with Bachmann coming out of last weekend’s national NMRA convention to get into the 1:32 world.
If that is true it is a very smart decision.
Proper scale models are always good sellers. Especially to scale model collectors.
Bachmann have been producing 1/32 scale brass for a few years. Nothing new for those gauge 1 guys. Brass 1/32 scale will not become mainstream, although with escalating 1/20.3 scale prices, a few thousand dollars for a Bachmann brass loco will be seen to be not too outrageous. However, is a brass 1/32 scale Bachmann really a Bachmann or just a production run commissioned by Bachmann to a contracted offsite specialist manufacturer?
A local discounter has the newly released Climax with DCC and sound at a trifling $1300 Aud. That is around $1400 USD. That is a discounted price! Whose pulling whose leg???
At the risk of sounding like a complete smart a-- Simply based upon many previous products,…Whatever Bachmann releases next may well be some obscure, one off, or never built (aka “catalog”) piece than no modeler who wasn’t on LSD or PCP would EVER think to ask for…
And you gonna LIKE it… or else you’ll get nothing for Christmas…
Quote:Please clarify.
... Bachmann have been producing 1/32 scale brass for a few years.
Later,
K
Kevin,
they have been selling a Chinese prototype brass loco for quite sometime, usually on eBay (around $3500 - $4000). They also make an ‘O’ scale brass English locomotive (around $1000).
Tim, I believe, is referring to the British outline brass models which, as far as I know, are no longer being made due to the escalating cost of brass. However, he has been in garden railroading much longer than I so he will concur or add to this post.
Tim. You beat me to the post with your post. lol
bachmann has to get the quality right at £1000.00+ pound or dollar locos, at that price i want a loco i can run for many years with good spares back up and good performance, bit like LGB i suppose and it looks like they might have learned with the new locos
bachmann can do a lot on the cheap, the mogul could be reboilered and made a bit more modern, the k27 could be made with inside cylinders or an earlier version
or 455 with its last tender, the mallet made with a normal boiler and connie tender slightly modified,
introduce a coach in 1 20, how good would it be to have a reasonably priced kits of different styles that could be interchanged and swapped, sure the ams are nice but do i really want to spend loadsa money on one and then buy some different sides for it,
they could make a combine a palour, a baggage and a mail car , all with different style roofs and different ends and interiors, but sharing the same chassis, all interchangeable
that would be cost effective, and put a bit of fun back into the hobby
and make the connie with a wooden cab and simple valve gear , enough to make it different
and surely a c16 or 19 would be a winner, and keep it simple electronics wise
and prototypical rgs/cs box and stock cars would be very welcome and fill a big void in the market
mr bachmann i have money to spend, i work hard for it, so give me something im happy to spend it on,
Thanks, Tim. I knew about that one, but didn’t know if you were referring to a greater product line beyond that.
Later,
K
Dave you said it best, for a Grand it had darn well be expected to run flawless and do all thats expected of a four figure investment. Unfortunately they seamed to have learned quality control from small Italian supercar manufacturers who are totally unfazed when the customer drives off the lot with their new $300K supercar only to have it blow up and crash upon the first gearchange.