price rises - how long can this be sustainable

[ScottyStitch]

There is also the myth that because something is becoming more expensive, we are being ripped off. That just doesn't appear to be the case.

Just because you can't afford it, or can't justify it, doesn't mean it's overpriced.

You're right of course but (grinding axe again) whatever price it is it should work properly!!!

Fair point, but what is this discussion actually about?  Is it the cost or the cost coupled to the (assumed) failure rate of 5%?

If the manufacturer was able to get the failure rate down to 1% or 0.5% or even 0%, what would  you be prepared to pay? £170? £200? £250?

How much are you prepared to pay for an item that works out of the box, every time. You could argue that it should work out of the box every time, regardless of price, but the cheaper you make that product (to buy and by extension to manufacture), the less realistic and possible that ideal becomes.

Simple manufacturing economics, the cost of performing v the cost of not-performing. Farish et al, it would appear, have decided that the cost of not performing 5% of the time (assuming that failure rate assumption is correct) is less than the cost of not performing 0% of the time.

[austinbob]

There is also the myth that because something is becoming more expensive, we are being ripped off. That just doesn't appear to be the case.

Just because you can't afford it, or can't justify it, doesn't mean it's overpriced.

You're right of course but (grinding axe again) whatever price it is it should work properly!!!

Fair point, but what is this discussion actually about?  Is it the cost or the cost coupled to the (assumed) failure rate of 5%?

If the manufacturer was able to get the failure rate down to 1% or 0.5% or even 0%, what would  you be prepared to pay? £170? £200? £250?

How much are you prepared to pay for an item that works out of the box, every time. You could argue that it should work out of the box every time, regardless of price, but the cheaper you make that product (to buy and by extension to manufacture), the less realistic and possible that ideal becomes.

Simple manufacturing economics, the cost of performing v the cost of not-performing. Farish et al, it would appear, have decided that the cost of not performing 5% of the time (assuming that failure rate assumption is correct) is less than the cost of not performing 0% of the time.

Like anything else I buy, for the price indicated, I expect it to work. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me!
I can't believe any manufacturer is really gonna say 'if you want one that works you'll have to pay more' .

[ScottyStitch]

There is also the myth that because something is becoming more expensive, we are being ripped off. That just doesn't appear to be the case.

Just because you can't afford it, or can't justify it, doesn't mean it's overpriced.

You're right of course but (grinding axe again) whatever price it is it should work properly!!!

Fair point, but what is this discussion actually about?  Is it the cost or the cost coupled to the (assumed) failure rate of 5%?

If the manufacturer was able to get the failure rate down to 1% or 0.5% or even 0%, what would  you be prepared to pay? £170? £200? £250?

How much are you prepared to pay for an item that works out of the box, every time. You could argue that it should work out of the box every time, regardless of price, but the cheaper you make that product (to buy and by extension to manufacture), the less realistic and possible that ideal becomes.

Simple manufacturing economics, the cost of performing v the cost of not-performing. Farish et al, it would appear, have decided that the cost of not performing 5% of the time (assuming that failure rate assumption is correct) is less than the cost of not performing 0% of the time.

Like anything else I buy, for the price indicated, I expect it to work. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me!
I can't believe any manufacturer is really gonna say 'if you want one that works you'll have to pay more' .

I'm afraid that is exactly what they are saying. (well, actually in fairness what they are actually saying is if you want more than 95 in a hundred that work then you need to pay more)

They know that a certain percentage will get through quality control.

All because of that simple manufacturing equation.

It happens with just about everything you buy. Think about it. The only single way Farish can guarantee that every single item will work out of the box is to test every single one as it comes off the production line. And then, test every single one that comes off the boat into the UK. Either that or hand build each and everyone with highly trained and skilled engineers, using components that are likewise not factory-assembly-line produced.

They can't and won't do that for an item at the prices we are paying. For that you'd need to be paying CJM prices.

[Steve Brassett]

Like anything else I buy, for the price indicated, I expect it to work. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me!
I can't believe any manufacturer is really gonna say 'if you want one that works you'll have to pay more' .

To be fair - what they are saying is "If you want to guarantee that it works, you'll have to pay more". 95% already do work (that figure may be wrong, of course).  Almost every product has a failure rate.  Sometimes it is acceptable (like a toaster) - sometimes it is not (like a parachute), so you pay a lot more comparatively for a parachute.

[austinbob]

Like anything else I buy, for the price indicated, I expect it to work. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me!
I can't believe any manufacturer is really gonna say 'if you want one that works you'll have to pay more' .

To be fair - what they are saying is "If you want to guarantee that it works, you'll have to pay more". 95% already do work (that figure may be wrong, of course).  Almost every product has a failure rate.  Sometimes it is acceptable (like a toaster) - sometimes it is not (like a parachute), so you pay a lot more comparatively for a parachute.

But.. as I indicated in another post, 5% failure rate, for a run of say 5000, means 250 unhappy customers. That cannot be sustainable.
The principle of good quality management is ...
Design it  right, form fit and function. Design for production using the right materials. This costs money _ agreed.
If the design is right then this will result in LESS cost for inspection, test, scrap, rework, warranty returns. AND happy customers who will be more likely to purchase more.
The costs of bad quality invariably are more than the cost of designing in good quality.
Learnt from many years spent in design, manufacturing and quality management.

[ScottyStitch]

Having just looked at the CJM site, I hope it's okay to copy and paste from his page about the chassis:

"Since 1994 in excess of 3000 units have been produced with reliability of almost 100% –

Only 2 motors replaced, both having received 16 AC
No brushes replaced.
No gears replaced.
20 – 30 traction tyres replaced
Some 2-5 locomotives are serviced each month consisting of wheel cleaning, oiling of contact plates and removal of fluff, hair, grit etc from gears.
Other repairs have sometimes been needed but sadly this has been as a result of idle curiosity or dropping (or both!)"

Now, that's for a for a hand made locomotive with a chassis ALONE that costs from £195 and a locomotive costs upwards of £495. And even at that, you can't be guaranteed 100% reliability. Just almost.

I think for circa £100, for a similar sized diesel locomotive (ie 20% of the price of a CJM), we actually do okay in comparison (only a 5% worse reliability). It's not perfect nor ideal, but we do okay.

[ScottyStitch]

Like anything else I buy, for the price indicated, I expect it to work. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me!
I can't believe any manufacturer is really gonna say 'if you want one that works you'll have to pay more' .

To be fair - what they are saying is "If you want to guarantee that it works, you'll have to pay more". 95% already do work (that figure may be wrong, of course).  Almost every product has a failure rate.  Sometimes it is acceptable (like a toaster) - sometimes it is not (like a parachute), so you pay a lot more comparatively for a parachute.

But.. as I indicated in another post, 5% failure rate, for a run of say 5000, means 250 unhappy customers. That cannot be sustainable.
The principle of good quality management is ...
Design it  right, form fit and function. Design for production using the right materials. This costs money _ agreed.
If the design is right then this will result in LESS cost for inspection, test, scrap, rework, warranty returns. AND happy customers who will be more likely to purchase more.
The costs of bad quality invariably are more than the cost of designing in good quality.
Learnt from many years spent in design, manufacturing and quality management.

It also means 4750 happy customers. It doesn't matter what the number is, its the percentage that counts!

How many duds have you had Bob? And yet you still buy n gauge. So do others.

So it seems, it is sustainable. Or they wouldn't be in business.

I'll leave you to it, because we're going round and round. Like last time. and the time before that. If you're not happy with the quality control, then don't gamble on buying it and finding it's a dud. Choose another gauge. or another hobby that will give you 100% reliability.

[Steve Brassett]

In IT, you pay for the 9s.  If you want 90% availability, you pay one price.  Up that to 99% and you'll pay more.  Add a couple more 9s - to 99.99% availability and you will pay even more - a lot more.

[austinbob]

Like anything else I buy, for the price indicated, I expect it to work. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me!
I can't believe any manufacturer is really gonna say 'if you want one that works you'll have to pay more' .

To be fair - what they are saying is "If you want to guarantee that it works, you'll have to pay more". 95% already do work (that figure may be wrong, of course).  Almost every product has a failure rate.  Sometimes it is acceptable (like a toaster) - sometimes it is not (like a parachute), so you pay a lot more comparatively for a parachute.

But.. as I indicated in another post, 5% failure rate, for a run of say 5000, means 250 unhappy customers. That cannot be sustainable.
The principle of good quality management is ...
Design it  right, form fit and function. Design for production using the right materials. This costs money _ agreed.
If the design is right then this will result in LESS cost for inspection, test, scrap, rework, warranty returns. AND happy customers who will be more likely to purchase more.
The costs of bad quality invariably are more than the cost of designing in good quality.
Learnt from many years spent in design, manufacturing and quality management.

It also means 4750 happy customers. It doesn't matter what the number is, its the percentage that counts!

How many duds have you had Bob? And yet you still buy n gauge. So do others.

So it seems, it is sustainable. Or they wouldn't be in business.

I'll leave you to it, because we're going round and round. Like last time. and the time before that. If you're not happy with the quality control, then don't gamble on buying it and finding it's a dud. Choose another gauge. or another hobby that will give you 100% reliability.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll carry on with returning duds when I get them in the hope that things will improve.

[Newportnobby]

I'll carry on with returning duds when I get them in the hope that things will improve.

As will I, Bob, but deep down I think we both know things won't improve.
My last job was selling UK made automotive parts which carried a 2 year warranty but, when the customer is offered a Chinese imitation with no warranty at half the price, guess which one they would buy. And this was a part which meant MOT failure if it was split.

[red_death]

But.. as I indicated in another post, 5% failure rate, for a run of say 5000, means 250 unhappy customers. That cannot be sustainable.
Design it  right, form fit and function. Design for production using the right materials. This costs money _ agreed.
If the design is right then this will result in LESS cost for inspection, test, scrap, rework, warranty returns. AND happy customers who will be more likely to purchase more.
The costs of bad quality invariably are more than the cost of designing in good quality.

But on low runs the manufacturers have clearly decided that the costs of failures are not worth improving the design!

[austinbob]

But.. as I indicated in another post, 5% failure rate, for a run of say 5000, means 250 unhappy customers. That cannot be sustainable.
Design it  right, form fit and function. Design for production using the right materials. This costs money _ agreed.
If the design is right then this will result in LESS cost for inspection, test, scrap, rework, warranty returns. AND happy customers who will be more likely to purchase more.
The costs of bad quality invariably are more than the cost of designing in good quality.

But on low runs the manufacturers have clearly decided that the costs of failures are not worth improving the design!

Very sad. Customers obviously aren't important even though they keep these 2nd rate Companies afloat.
I'm signing out of this thread as its just too depressing to read all these posts excusing rubbish quality.

[zwilnik]

But.. as I indicated in another post, 5% failure rate, for a run of say 5000, means 250 unhappy customers. That cannot be sustainable.
Design it  right, form fit and function. Design for production using the right materials. This costs money _ agreed.
If the design is right then this will result in LESS cost for inspection, test, scrap, rework, warranty returns. AND happy customers who will be more likely to purchase more.
The costs of bad quality invariably are more than the cost of designing in good quality.

But on low runs the manufacturers have clearly decided that the costs of failures are not worth improving the design!

and in the long run, the bad comments about them on the internet and at club meets etc. will build up and impact sales of their future products. They might survive ok at the moment, but any sort of limit on sales can kill a company when you hit a critical patch. A quarter where the new model absolutely has to sell out and the competition also has something great out and a history of "wait and see if you get a broken one" can lead to a failed quarter as everyone's spending their limited cash on the competition's product.

On low runs, it's even more critical to have the quality. Especially in a collectible environment where a good percentage of the product ends up nearly permanently on eBay as they've been bought just because they're limited in numbers and can command a high price. That means the actual user base of customers who are running the product is smaller, so a failure rate of 5% on the whole run is actually more significant.

[joe cassidy]

Why don't the retailers do the testing ?

Maybe I'm wrong but maybe there are some quiet periods when not many customers are in the shop when locos could be given a test run.

The duff ones could then be sent back to the manufacturer.

The shops could charge a premium of say £5 per loco for tested locos compared with untested ones.

Best regards,


Joe

[austinbob]

Why don't the retailers do the testing ?

Maybe I'm wrong but maybe there are some quiet periods when not many customers are in the shop when locos could be given a test run.

The duff ones could then be sent back to the manufacturer.

The shops could charge a premium of say £5 per loco for tested locos compared with untested ones.

Best regards,


Joe

I know I said I've signed out of this topic but...
I understand your reasoning Joe but why should the retailer have to do the tests the manufacturer should be doing? If they did what you suggest they would have to charge enough to cover the cost of the test and the cost of them returning the loco to the manufacturer if it was faulty (unless that is part of the warranty return cost to the manufacturer) - that is the responsibility of the manufacturer I think.
You wouldn't expect retailers to have to check toasters or washing machines or anything else before they sell them would you??