Production Run Size Then and Now

[robmcg]

Hi All,

 

I have been very impressed by the quality of recent Hornby models.

 

The new Terrier models with ornate paintwork and detail are to my mind simply astonishing given that they are made in what I understand to be quite small production numbers, equally such as the J36,   or going back a decade, the 4MT 4-6-0.   Few of us could assemble models to this standard, none could paint them, yet these models are often under UKP100 retail..

 

Which raises the question, how do they make a profit? Is it just cheap skilled labour? 

 

I read yesterday in the Hornby Companion Series 'Hornby Dublo Trains'  that the 1954 initial production run for the Standard 2-6-4T was 100,000.  

 

These sold for comparable prices through the mid-late 50s, and Hornby in those days produced less than one new engine design each year.  Eventually the advent of plastic and 2-rail and other things brought about the demise of the company. They said the low number of new models was because resources were stretched making current ones , at least that's how I understand their statements at the time.

 

Certainly market  and consumer expectations were different in the 1950s, but surely the economics are essentially the same?

 

Just wondering out loud, that's all. 

 

Cheers

Edited June 1, 2019 by robmcg

[mdvle]

Cheap skilled labour (yes, China is still relatively cheap despite the wage increases of the last decade) is certainly a major factor, as our models are labour intensive given the production runs are so small that automation isn't really feasible.

 

It is somewhat difficult to get facts, the closest we seem to get is Jason Shron from Rapido trains who is quite open about what he views the issues are.  I believe he has estimated in the past that to do a highly detailed model with production in North America would boost costs by about 4X.

 

But it is also somewhat the technology that is available to the manufacturer these days - particularly the pad printing.  Given enough time most of us could probably build a detailed model, but what we can't reliably do for most of us is replicate the reproduction of the livery, and while the basics are painted much of the more intricate stuff is actually printed onto the models.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

9 hours ago, mdvle said:

...it is also somewhat the technology that is available to the manufacturer these days...

The extremely close visible fits of mating parts, even when made in different materials, speak to better technique in design and manufacturing. This leads to much less clean up and no 'adjustment to fit' required at assembly which is a major economy.

 

Not just the paint job that I cannot hope to imitate: glazing has significantly improved over the past decade. On the more recent toolings it is possible to look through a vehicle via two plane windows with few of the lens effects seen in models not so long ago.

 

How is it done: the same way it has always been done since manufacturing engineering became a discipline. Adopt better techniques and technologies, standardise on what works best, train everyone involved and keep them up to date, 'nibble' away at everything that isn't as good as it might be, keep looking for applicable benchmark performance to adopt. (Read Dr W Edwards Deming if you really want to grasp the underlying principles, presented in a sympathetic manner. The Japanese named their industrial quality award for this man, a US citizen.)

[The Johnster]

The quality of modern RTR is astonishing to someone my age, old enough to remember Hornby Dublo and Rovex Triang.  A very high level of detail, separate components, daylight visible where it should be beneath boilers and frames, cabs clear of motors, superb finishes and good slow running performance.  Criticism of such models seems carping and irrational.  When I returned to the hobby after a 3 decade hiatus 3 years ago, already accustomed to 'improved' RTR from Mainline and Airfix, one of my first purchases was a Hornby SR Van C in BR crimson; the standard of this model was a revelation.  Progress has been made with a capital P, for what seem to me to be very reasonable prices (although I have made a point of buying as many of my locos as I could before the latest increases).  I am accustomed to thinking of Hornby as, at best, manufacturers of toys that, if you were lucky, were close enough to scale to be worth working up; that is a very outdated concept and H are as good as anyone in the trade and better than some deze daze.

 

But another huge difference between the 50s and the current scene is the size of the ranges.  Back in the 50s. the thinking seemed to be that you had an express loco, a freight loco, a suburban tank, and an 0-6-0 for shunting and trip work, and that's all your railway could possibly need.  They did not even necessarily come from the same company; Hornby Dublo could give you a pacific from the LMS or the LNER, an LMS freight engine, BR big tank, and the LNER N2; the 0-6-0 came from the South East of England and was, IIRC, their first plastic bodied loco.  

 

Hornby Dublo were perhaps more restricted in that they had to make 3 and 2 rail versions of everything, which may have been a factor in this limited range, but the received wisdom was that large ranges were not necessary.  They increased the range a bit in the 60s with plastic bodied diesels and the Castle and West Country. but if you look at the competition, Rovex Triang, you see a similar thing; a pacific, BR standard tank, 3F, Jinty; who needed more than that to run all sorts of trains.  Coaching stock repeated the pattern; a main line brake 3rd and compo with a restaurant car, and a suburban brake 3rd and compo, in different liveries.  Triang were early in the game with a diesel shunter, though it was very toy like even by the standards of those days.

 

Both companies expanded their ranges in the 60s, though only the HD Castle addressed the GW market, but the production was still in long runs; it was many years before the Rovex Princess and Jinty were re-tooled beyond the upgrade to the couplings, and the HD models never were.  Trains were mostly 2 or 3 coach affairs, and this is reflected in the Cyril Freezer track plans of the day.  Production, once started, was for the long game, which made improvement difficult.  As the customer, you were grateful for what you were given and made the best of it, which for the GW was a Castle that wouldn't run through Triang pointwork or couple to Triang stock, and, um, well, that was it really.  You were forced into kits, Will's or K's.

 

The companies focussed on prototypes that were easy to produce, with little regard to their geographical spread or class numbers.  Nowadays, it would be beyond conception that no RTR company would produce a Black 5 or a Hall, no panniers, no Class 47 or 37 or 66.  Hornby Dublo hitched their cart to the Metrovick Co-Bo, and Triang to the Hymek, both classes with limited geograhic spread and low or lowish numbers.  In 1965, there was no 5MT steam loco or anything suitable for the WR in the Triang range.  

 

It is different now.  The short production runs suit the Chinese production model of booking production facilities for a limited period, and the market demand for even quite obscure models can be catered for. Some of the old timers are still around where there has been a demand expressed for them, like Hornby's LOTI and shortie clerestories, despite still being fundamentally early 1960s standard RTR, because they can be adapted by modellers to other things or worked up a bit as they are.  There is still a dearth of panelled stock despite the ease of moulding it in plastic.  

 

The point is that the RTR trade is able to respond to our wishes as expressed in wishlists and other forms of market research, and the process is much more 'customer led'.  The problem for the manufacturers is the lead time in getting the model to the shelves for us to buy; this is considerable, seems to be much longer than it was in the 50s and 60s because research is more demanding, design must be very carefully worked on for maximum efficiency, and booking the production slots is out of the company's control as they are in the hands of their Chinese subcontractors.  The Bachmann 94xx has been many years in the pipeline and seems to have suffered in this regard more than most, but makes a good illustration.  Re-liveries of existing models can be brought out very quickly, though, and given their frequent appearance on the prototype this is just as well!

 

It is often pointed out that we are an ageing hobby, but I've never taken much notice of this; I've been listening to doom laden predictions for years and the hobby is healthier than ever.  But there is a relevance in that most of us who remember steam in revenue service will be dead or gaga in the fairly near future, and Baccy have already lost about 5 years of potential 94xx sales, perhaps 25% of what they might have achieved with this loco.  Responding to the market is best done quickly if it can be.

 

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

Triang-Hornby introduced the class 37 in the mid 1960s. It always looked wrong to me as it had centre headcodes where all the local 37s (in the Newcastle area) had split boxes. Don't think it was all that long after the Hymek in coming out.

It was a long time before either a 47 (mid 1970s; one promised by Trix never arrived) or a 25 appeared. Much later before a 24. The engine most associated with Triang was the Brush Type 2 (later 30/31) done in both OO and TT, though in different versions—and confined at that time to the ER, mostly East Anglia and GN suburban.

[melmerby]

The market has changed so much that production runs have been changed to suit.

In the good old days(!) production runs were such that retailers could always keep certain steady sellers in stock.

Sold the last Jinty? No problem. Margate will have loads in the warehouse. Quick order to Triang and another box arrives.

Same with Princess etc.

These days production is generally to satisfy current demand, keeping boxes full in the ware house for possible future sales  is not financially sensible.

[dibber25]

Tri-ang/Hornby used to show the girls on the production line in Margate painting boiler bands by hand with a brush - just plain orange of course. More than anything it is the exceptional quality of the printing which sets today's models apart. It's a combination of skilled operators and some sophisticated machines, processes and inks. My prize for the moment would go to Hornby's GWR non-corridor coaches in the chocolate and cream livery. There's a tiny 'triangle' on the cream at the R/H end. Put a magnifier on it and you can actually read the number of first and third class seats - but that's not all, it's printed in 'gilt' (always a difficult colour to print) and it's shaded letters, too! (CJL)

 

[robmcg]

13 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The extremely close visible fits of mating parts, even when made in different materials, speak to better technique in design and manufacturing. This leads to much less clean up and no 'adjustment to fit' required at assembly which is a major economy.

 

Not just the paint job that I cannot hope to imitate: glazing has significantly improved over the past decade. On the more recent toolings it is possible to look through a vehicle via two plane windows with few of the lens effects seen in models not so long ago.

 

How is it done: the same way it has always been done since manufacturing engineering became a discipline. Adopt better techniques and technologies, standardise on what works best, train everyone involved and keep them up to date, 'nibble' away at everything that isn't as good as it might be, keep looking for applicable benchmark performance to adopt. (Read Dr W Edwards Deming if you really want to grasp the underlying principles, presented in a sympathetic manner. The Japanese named their industrial quality award for this man, a US citizen.)

 

While accepting these improvements I am nevertheless astonished by skill of assembly. Setting up the myriad small parts to be painted, then organised to be assembled equally, well, at UKP80 retail for 'Stepney' and such , or similar with production runs of surely under 1,000, speaks of a very efficient company, not the one so often portrayed.

 

And all credit to the people organising and doing the work!

 

Edit, I have just fallen in love (again) with 1950s Hornby Dublo, and the whole feel of a die cast model is so different, thus my heightened sensitivity regarding the extreme detail on today's models.  A bit like bromide film and plate cameras, compared to a digital SLR.

Edited June 2, 2019 by robmcg

[PatB]

Of course, back in the day, if you fancied loco X in the catalogue, but didn't have the readies at the time, no problem. Save up over weeks/months and your local model shop will have one on the shelf when you get there, or if they don't, the next nearest will, or you can send a  postal order off to Railmail or whoever. Now, it seem, unless you're cashed up when pre-orders open for something desirable, you're out of luck and stuck with Ebay chancers once you've found the money. Although I guess this can work the other way, with the less popular variants ending up with Hattons and going for bargain prices just to shift them. The Rail Blue 2-BIL(?) and some of the parcels cars spring to mind.

 

Overall, though, I'm not sure that putting together a coherent stock collection for a layout is really any easier today than when there just wasn't much available. The challenges have just changed from those of actually adapting/building stock to those of planning and budgeting many months or even years in advance. How many potential converts did 0 gauge lose, for example, when everybody got excited about the Dapol 08 and started planning large scale Inglenooks, only to become disillusioned with the seemingly interminable wait and went and built something they could get the bits for?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

20 minutes ago, PatB said:

... The challenges have just changed from those of actually adapting/building stock to those of planning and budgeting many months or even years in advance...

I'll take the second alternative every time! The credit card is mightier by far than the files, saws, scriber, steel rule, surface plate, engineer's square, soldering iron, etc. required to build a circa 1970 loco kit, with no guarantee of satisfactory appearance or performance at the end of it.

 

Objective justification of above statement: I still have a W&H catalogue from 'back then' - cannot tell exactly what year, cover long gone. In it are marked all the kits of truly essential classes I intended to build - of which I managed to build a third, one off example of each - before 'real life' effectively precluded railway modelling. All but two of those kit subjects now have RTR OO models superior in every respect, most of which I own in multiple quantities by means of the simple deployment of my flexible friend...

[The Johnster]

Ready cash, or at least available credit, being a significant part of this state of affairs.  Modern RTR can't be done in long production runs because the assembly facilities are contracted out and only available for limited periods at a time, so we have to shell out for models as and when they are available.  This leads to pre-orders and difficulty obtaining the model you want on it's first production run if you can't commit that money to the pre-order.  

 

Some of us (gets violin out and adopts sad expression) are not in a position to do this, or would be unwise to.  I live on a rather limited fixed income which consists of an occupational and a state pension, and cannot increase this; many of the youngsters that the hobby keeps saying it wants to attract are in a similar position.  Our cloth must be cut accordingly.  Planning and budgeting must indeed be done months or years in advance, and in my case the Bachmann 94xx is looming to the extent that it is preventing me buying other things as I try to build up a cash reserve to cope with it's arrival.  The further in advance your planning and budgeting is, the less likely it is to be proof against unforeseen circumstances, and there is a point at which it becomes pointless, a pointless point if you see what I mean...

 

I am lucky in that my local shop is a very good one, and has agreed to 'put aside' a Bachmann 94xx for me when the early BR livery one I want turns up, knowing that he might have to wait 2 or 3 weeks before pension day when I can pay for it while the rest of his stock flies off the shelves.  Not everyone has a local shop, never mind one as accommodating as this, and the alternative is online pre-ordering.  From the manufacturers' point of view, overproduction is costly and wasteful, and as providing the exact amount of models the market requires at any given time is, while highly desirable and the most profitable situation, impossible to achieve in practice, it makes sense to underproduce slightly, which keeps demand high and discourages price cutting.  The down side is that 'Bay is waiting like a vulture in the wings to pounce if the underproduction is so great as to make buying at the RRP and selling at market profitable; the RTR company gets accused of market fixing or poor planning and everybody goes home feeling a bit grumpy.

 

The iron laws of The Market, supply and demand, are immutable and sometimes very cruel, but this is the world we live in and nobody's come up with a better idea yet!

 

In a discussion elsewhere on RMweb, I have been musing about the possibility of a Swindon Cross Country Class 120 dmu in red or blue boxes, and the point's been made that rising costs will put a full set beyond the reach of many of those who want one.  I foresee easy payment arrangements becoming a feature of the hobby for some of the more expensive items, although this has little bearing on production runs.  It might, however, be a precondition of pre-ordering, which will have an effect.

[robmcg]

I still don't quite why Hornby Dublo required, or at least chose 100,000 Standard 2-6-4Ts as an initial production run in 1954 when these days production runs in proprietary RTR 00 model engines are often about 1,000, or maybe 10,000 with multiple livery changes..

 

I wouldn't have thought the initial setup cost for the 2-6-4T was 10-100 times the cost of setting up, say, a J36.

 

I must be be missing something. 

[BR60103]

I heard that sometime around 1950 Hornby Dublo had a large stock of Duchesses in LMS colours with no smoke deflectors.  Since the market was apparently demanding BR locos with smoke deflectors, they took the old ones and painted them black, drilled a headlight into the smokebox door, added a cowcatcher and lettered them Canadian Pacific. They then tried to flog them to unsuspecting colonials.

 

 

If you look at Hornby's then market, a boy would be lucky to get a locomotive a year for Christmas or birthday -- more likely one loco and extra carriages/wagons subsequenty.

 

[Steamport Southport]

46 minutes ago, robmcg said:

I still don't quite why Hornby Dublo required, or at least chose 100,000 Standard 2-6-4Ts as an initial production run in 1954 when these days production runs in proprietary RTR 00 model engines are often about 1,000, or maybe 10,000 with multiple livery changes..

 

I wouldn't have thought the initial setup cost for the 2-6-4T was 10-100 times the cost of setting up, say, a J36.

 

I must be be missing something. 

 

Possibly because the Standard 4MTs were new and were planned to be found all over the country whilst J36s were obscure and dare I say obsolete locomotives that were only really found in Scotland. Children tend to want "new and modern" things. Don't forget they planned to build many more 80XXXs than what was built. Almost certainly many hundreds of them to replace older locomotives. One of the reasons for the big gap up to the next class, the 82XXXs.

 

Then the 1955 Modernisation Plan with dieselization/electrification schemes scuttled that idea. Orders were cancelled and the rest is history.

 

 

Jason

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

5 hours ago, robmcg said:

I still don't quite why Hornby Dublo required, or at least chose 100,000 Standard 2-6-4Ts as an initial production run in 1954 when these days production runs in proprietary RTR 00 model engines are often about 1,000, or maybe 10,000 with multiple livery changes..

 

I wouldn't have thought the initial setup cost for the 2-6-4T was 10-100 times the cost of setting up, say, a J36.

 

I must be be missing something. 

Because back then, there was no effective competition for three rail OO, H-D were the sole supplier; and there were quite likely a million boys who wanted such a trainset, and a fortunate hundred thousand or so who actually had one.

 

Exceptionally among my friends was a youngest son who had the most astounding three rail set, there were three older brothers, and each had received  a loco: that accounted for the A4, N2 and Duchess, he got the 4MT: and then the eldest brother by now earning well in the motor trade - he used to appear in an open top sports car! - came up first with the 8F and then the 350hp shunter. Six locos, that was twice what any of the rest of us had on our Triang sets.

 

Basically as I recall it circa 1960 the good indoor boy's toy choices were train set, diecast motor vehicles, polystyrene kits.

(Outdoors it was all the armaments of the world, by Lone Star, or the much better option of a bike. With a  bike you could go places to see the trains...)

[adb968008]

6 hours ago, robmcg said:

I still don't quite why Hornby Dublo required, or at least chose 100,000 Standard 2-6-4Ts as an initial production run in 1954 when these days production runs in proprietary RTR 00 model engines are often about 1,000, or maybe 10,000 with multiple livery changes..

  

I wouldn't have thought the initial setup cost for the 2-6-4T was 10-100 times the cost of setting up, say, a J36.

 

I must be be missing something. 

Because there was probably 200k enthusiastic railway kids/adults wandering around the country who like trains, and with minimal competition (trix) the public had limited choice of subject to buy. You want a nationwide tank engine... its 80054 or nowt, maybe half chose one way half the other.

 

Today there's probably still 100k enthusiastic fans, but spread across the all the generations who like trains and we have choice of scale, as well as depth of subject and vastly more manufacturers.

 

You only need to roll back to year 2000 to only have 2 choices of 00 Gauge steam.. Hornby and Bachmann. (Lima/ViTrains weren't steam, Dapol wasn't a force and Heljan was new but only diesels), no commissioners.. and Hornby Limited Editions were produced in numbers of 3000-5000, Lima's ranged from 350-550 with odd ones (92001) at 3000. I recall the decision for the Lima 92 was based on estimated sales of 30k units in all variants.

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by adb968008

[dibber25]

7 hours ago, robmcg said:

I still don't quite why Hornby Dublo required, or at least chose 100,000 Standard 2-6-4Ts as an initial production run in 1954 when these days production runs in proprietary RTR 00 model engines are often about 1,000, or maybe 10,000 with multiple livery changes..

 

I wouldn't have thought the initial setup cost for the 2-6-4T was 10-100 times the cost of setting up, say, a J36.

 

I must be be missing something. 

Because you're not comparing like with like. You're comparing a 1950s children's toy with a current enthusiast/hobbyist niche scale model. In the 1950s - when I got my three-rail 4MT in its classic goods trainset, a trainset was the desirable kids' Christmas present. If you're comparing production runs, a better comparison would be with the latest large Lego model or Playmobil set (the latter numbers suitably adjusted to allow for population growth. (CJL)

[adb968008]

I will say I have my fathers 80054 from when he was a kid, and 6231.

Both work a treat, original mechanisms, though converted to 2 rail back in 1980, and similar age to the real thing.

Edited June 4, 2019 by adb968008

[robmcg]

In view of the above posts,may I deduce that design, tooling and setting up a new RTR model is relatively a lot less expensive now than it was in 1954?   Either that or Meccano Ltd made very good returns on the set-up costs for their locomotives.

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, robmcg said:

In view of the above posts,may I deduce that design, tooling and setting up a new RTR model is relatively a lot less expensive now than it was in 1954?   Either that or Meccano Ltd made very good returns on the set-up costs for their locomotives.

 

I would probably say it was cheaper back then.

 

They had very skilled workers that had just finished building things like parts for things like Spitfires and Lancaster Bombers. My nan worked at Binns Road around about the time. But I doubt the (mostly) women working there were exactly getting paid a fortune.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccano_Ltd

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

13 hours ago, dibber25 said:

Because you're not comparing like with like. You're comparing a 1950s children's toy with a current enthusiast/hobbyist niche scale model. In the 1950s - when I got my three-rail 4MT in its classic goods trainset, a trainset was the desirable kids' Christmas present. If you're comparing production runs, a better comparison would be with the latest large Lego model or Playmobil set (the latter numbers suitably adjusted to allow for population growth. (CJL)

 

If I was into LEGO I would be after these. 

 

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/product/LEGO-NASA-Apollo-Saturn-V-21309

 

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/product/NASA-Apollo-11-Lunar-Lander-10266

 

 

Jason

[Ozexpatriate]

18 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

If I was into LEGO I would be after these. 

 

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/product/LEGO-NASA-Apollo-Saturn-V-21309

 

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/product/NASA-Apollo-11-Lunar-Lander-10266

The Saturn V is outstanding and the build is ingenious. Once built, it hardly even looks like LEGO bricks. I have the Lunar lander on order.

[Nearholmer]

Because it’s relatively easy to put a 1950s model train alongside a 2010s one, it’s easy to see the huge change in materials, manufacturing techniques etc, the overall improvement in quality, if you like.

 

My wager is that, if a time machine existed and could pop us back to 1957 for a day- out, we’d be astonished by how crude and rough-edged (literally and figuratively) a vast number of things were, hugely expensive premium products aside. With the rose-tinted specs off, a lot of things then required vast amounts more maintenance, or were far less reliable, or didn’t last anything like as long, as their modern counterparts.

 

Try swapping a modern car for a brand new 1957 car, and then using it for five years, as a good instance.

 

A big part of the ‘how’ is digitisation of the design, toolmaking, and manufacturing processes ....... roundly, and perhaps sadly, the fewer humans are involved in the process, the better the result.

 

But, I still like Hornby Dublo and contemporary Bassett-Lowke trains ....... they are lovely things despite, or because, of their relative simplicity.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Ozexpatriate]

On 04/06/2019 at 02:06, dibber25 said:

If you're comparing production runs, a better comparison would be with the latest large Lego model or Playmobil set (the latter numbers suitably adjusted to allow for population growth.

Chris, your point that 1950s train sets were marketed as children's gifts in the same way that LEGO makes children's gifts is well made, though I would add a couple of caveats for LEGO production volumes.

 

Their largest sets are not targeted as gifts for children. They are unquestionably targeting adult fans. They are expensive to purchase and complex to build and regularly exceed pricing for Hornby-level model railway products, despite having essentially zero assembly cost. (On the very high end, sets like 75192 Millennium Falcon run to US$799.)  I expect sets like these to have smaller production runs than the cheaper sets intended for children. 

 

The Saturn V is a great example of how flexible their manufacturing is. When first released, these immediately sold out. Additional production runs were made to satisfy a larger demand than anticipated and it has been in regular production for a while. There is some tooling up required to relaunch a set. LEGO routinely manufactures only a small subset of the total possible combinations of colour and shape for their bricks at time, and usually the sets targeted at adult collectors include some 'unusual' or rare, colour/shape combinations that appeal to collectors. Manufacturing of these components needs to be planned into a relaunch.

 

ADDED

One other aspect of LEGO operations it their truly global scope. From very early on their focus spanned a wide (mostly Western market) incorporating such things as pictogram-based instructions. (Yes Airfix and other kit manufacturers did this too, but not like LEGO.) Today LEGO volumes are staggering compared with anything in the 1950s toy world. Globalization, even more than pure population growth) has the biggest underlying impact here.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[truffy]

On 05/06/2019 at 19:36, Nearholmer said:

Because it’s relatively easy to put a 1950s model train alongside a 2010s one, it’s easy to see the huge change in materials, manufacturing techniques etc, the overall improvement in quality, if you like.

 

My wager is that, if a time machine existed and could pop us back to 1957 for a day- out, we’d be astonished by how crude and rough-edged (literally and figuratively) a vast number of things were, hugely expensive premium products aside. With the rose-tinted specs off, a lot of things then required vast amounts more maintenance, or were far less reliable, or didn’t last anything like as long, as their modern counterparts.

 

Try swapping a modern car for a brand new 1957 car, and then using it for five years, as a good instance.

 

A big part of the ‘how’ is digitisation of the design, toolmaking, and manufacturing processes ....... roundly, and perhaps sadly, the fewer humans are involved in the process, the better the result.

 

But they hadn't introduced designed obsolescence in the '50s. And try maintaining your modern car yourself, without a degree in computer engineering and the paraphernalia of a NASA moon orbit. My dad and brother used to work on the family car back in the '70s, fortunately I have a great excuse not to get grease up to my armpits today!

 

On 05/06/2019 at 19:45, Ozexpatriate said:

Chris, your point that 1950s train sets were marketed as children's gifts in the same way that LEGO makes children's gifts is well made, though I would add a couple of caveats for LEGO production volumes.

 

Their largest sets are not targeted as gifts for children. They are unquestionably targeting adult fans. They are expensive to purchase and complex to build and regularly exceed pricing for Hornby-level model railway products, despite having essentially zero assembly cost. (On the very high end, sets like 75192 Millennium Falcon run to US$799.)  I expect sets like these to have smaller production runs than the cheaper sets intended for children. 

 

The Saturn V is a great example of how flexible their manufacturing is. When first released, these immediately sold out. Additional production runs were made to satisfy a larger demand than anticipated and it has been in regular production for a while. There is some tooling up required to relaunch a set. LEGO routinely manufactures only a small subset of the total possible combinations of colour and shape for their bricks at time, and usually the sets targeted at adult collectors include some 'unusual' or rare, colour/shape combinations that appeal to collectors. Manufacturing of these components needs to be planned into a relaunch.

 

LEGO has changed beyond being a toy to build anything. Today you buy kits to build a defined 'thing'. It's more complex, undoubtedly more expensive, but where's the imagination and play value? If I want a model of a Saturn V I'll but a styrene kit, which has greater fidelity and is just as limited in its reusability. OK, so you can't then break it down and rebuild it, but how many times do you need to build a Saturn V?