Hi!

I can only speculate.

24172 and 24188 are used for many starter sets and they probably are the most frequently pieces of straight C track. Large production runs, good return of investments in moulds and such.
I guess they sell many more 24077 and 24094 than they sell 24064. I think this justifies a higher price for the 24064, but the difference of the RRPs seems too big IMHO.

24064 are typically used with the large radii - and prices for curved track with large radii also seem a bit out of proportion.

I'll be more cynical...

You only buy a small piece of track when you absolutely need it, so in those circumstances you accept a higher price if it means you can complete your layout... They noticed that and priced accordingly...

Maybe that's a feature, not a bug: many folks prefer several small pieces at spots where the incline changes. Trains will run less smooth with fewer longer pieces of track.
Preformed layouts often have steep inclines and transitions occur during short lengths.

Whilst I agree the simple matter of supply and demand would overide most of what you say

For example if they adjusted the price of 24077 and 24094 suitably downwards the demand would increase exponetially as you can do anything and more with these two than you can with 24172 and 24188. Equally at the other end if they gave "a discount" on 24360 over 24172 plus 24188 then again they could look to sell a lot more.

My opinion, but I believe you to be correct Thomas.

The cost of production of each piece is the same, because each segment of track is made of the same number of parts, regardless of length.
And the labour involved in assembly (even if using jigs and presses) is the same for each piece.
1. 3 sets of sprung s/s clips at each end.
2. 1 length of steel puko
3. 2 running rails.

The only real production difference occurs between straight and curved track, where a bending machine is required.
The other factors determine the final price.

Generally in my experience, raising or lowering prices on articles in a limited market space ( model trains is a good example ) does not necessarily have an impact on quantities sold.

Kimball

This is all intellectual self gratification (to be polite...).

Looking at the balance sheet, we have a company that:
- keeps very little stock
- produces quasi on demand
- doesn't have real distribution costs (the dealers bear that cost)
- gets paid upfront on anything they do.
- barely brakes even, but their accounts include 20 million euros investments in improving their production and a new museum.

Where is please the reason for the price difference of an item that doesn't require more effort to produce, store and sell than another?

It is clear you won't build a layout out of 24064s, as you only use these tracks if you are venturing beyond the starter set, this is where you as a customer start being asked to the till, because you cannot complete your project without these tracks. The track system is engineered this way. The pricing is a pure policy thing, and is only very remotely based on the laws of demand and offer, but more on the NEED or perceived ADDED VALUE.
We could start another thread on the dismantling of the turnout design of the good old M-track days so you now have to buy a turnout and a motor separately.

Cynical as I am, I can't blame Märklin for increasing their profit margin on those items, this is a good business model, I would do the same in their position. After all, I still expect innovation and quality from them, and i want them to be around for another few years...

With all due respect, the differences we are talking about from a production cost perspective are cents, not euros.

1) We are not talking about new production items... This items have been in production since late 20th century, mould production costs should be right down by now, whatever the items. Additionally, Marklin has spare capacity in their factories, so they are losing money if they are not producing.
2) The production costs are the same at worst, if anything, they should be lower for shorter pieces, as the raw materials used are less.
3) Sure but not applicable here, as the system doesn't revolve around what sells best, but around producing what is needed on time. If they were calculating this way, the prices would change for each production batch, this is not the case.

This was my last post on the topic.... I don't want to dig out my MBA books and start teaching :)

I would not expect Märklin to have its own factory. It for them to use part of a factory's capacity where that factory creates product parts for many manufacturers. Are you sure they have their own wholly owned factory that does nothing else but make train parts for them?

1. Your MBA should tell you that the machine downtime to change between production items is not insignificant. For a machine producing one track item to be changed to another track item I would suggest would need probably a full day to remove the previous mold, fit the new mold, run some test pieces and get them approved by QA. That would be two machines for a track piece, one to do the plastic and one to cut the rails. There may also need to be changes to the machine that fits the bits together and connects the contacts to the rails underneath, but I could envisage this could be a standard setup for all track pieces. For a machine to produce 24066 pieces it would probably run for a week to produce enough stock to last 6-12 months ... then it needs the downtime to change to the next item ...

2. yes the production materials cost is less, and the material is common to a significant number of similar items (i.e. the whole C track range) but see my notes above about how long the machine will run to produce these pieces. That machine downtime is what costs.

3. the size of a production batch will revolve around what is selling, again see my answer to your point 1. Some items will have dedicated machines and be producing the same item for months at a time until the mold wears out and needs replacing because those are the common track items going into start sets and sell as stock items in large quantities, while other machines will cycle around items that sell in much smaller volumes, but produce stock that sits in the warehouse. Your MBA will tell you that there is an optimisation to this cycle, and the resultant sizes of batches versus the amount of stock in the warehouse, and this is why sometimes some of these smaller run items go out of stock for a period. Between the machine downtime costs and warehouse stocking costs for some items this will produce the sort of price differences that are being discussed.

Maybe the same machines make beer cars or banana cars when not needed for C track.

You answered yourself ..... profit.

Kimball

Let me clarify where I was coming from on this topic.

I am a great fan of Marklin C track for its quality, ease of use and re-use and …………….. price. Using the standard lengths and R1 and R2 curves I find the pricing especially at the readily available discounts to be very reasonable. However, I became alarmed after a session of track planning at the impact on the total project cost of the short pieces. With hindsight after a few head scratching hours and some basic lightbulb moments (like 172 plus 64 equals 236!) I have reworked and significantly reduced the expensive bits.

The uniqueness of three rail appears to have nothing to do with the pricing strategy – after all the RRP of Trix 62xxx track is broadly similar and because of volumes sold more expensive from the discounters. Other quality ballast formed HO track is similar in price and in some cases more expensive.

Sometimes on this forum my lifetime background in commercial management in the transport industry lets me down. Compared to the IT, engineering and manufacturing experience demonstrated regularly on here I am somewhat naïve. I had this unthought through vision of a man sitting at a bench with a pallet of long pieces of moulded c track and a number of simple jigs so he could cut quantities of the various lengths “to order” then the person at the next bench fitting the end bits. Having now looked at a piece of C track I realise how wrong I was and that each size appears to have its own mould. I’ll stop there before I say anything more foolish that can be corrected.

Hi R,

Thank you for your prescience and candor.

I regularly contribute to public opinions on places like the NY Times and The Guardian.
I too feel foolish at times at what I have said, but after contemplation of the resultant criticisms and barbs, I actually feel emboldened and envigorated.
One, because I have contributed a view to the debate that is different.
And two because I go away having learnt something new.

As our webmaster says in his footnote, He who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes.
He who does NOT ask a question, is a fool for life.

regards
Kimball