Are train manufacturers missing Generation X?

Otto Vondrak wrote:

green_elite_cab wrote:In the case of Railroad.net, we have a huge crowd of Commuter modelers.

I beg to differ. I see a lot of young kids who wish to collect models of the same kinds of trains that they see running past their houses. They are not "modelers." If anything, they are upset that a) the models they want either don't exist or b) if they do exist they cost a lot of acquire. If they were actually "modelers" they would figure out how to built the models that they want, or otherwise acquire them.

It's a pretty important distinction.

-otto-

Sorry, Otto, but I'm with GEC on this one.

Yes, I wish to model the "same kinds of trains that I see running past my house" (in my case, NJT). However, modeling them isn't feasible right now because of the cost, and I have other priorities. I work three months a year, and am rushing to squeeze in as much modeling as I can before college next fall. With a very long modeling wishlist and a rather small budget, there are many priorities before modeling Transit. My main priority is completing the layout, because, without a layout, there's nowhere to run the trains. While I could maybe build the models and remain within my budget, I don't have the time to do it right now, so I'd rather spend the little time that I have doing other things.

I have a PL42AC that I built/painted/decaled myself, but it's currently a static model because I have no passenger cars to run it with. I've come to the realization that I don't have room in my budget, so I've given up on passenger operations for the time being. Therefore, this is essentially a collection piece.

In reality, we all wish to collect model trains. Some people do just that, while others choose to operate these trains. The distinction is not whether or not we collect the trains, it's if we do anything with them.

So, just because I want to model Transit, but can't right now because I don't have the time or money, that means I'm not a modeler? I have a fully operational and partly scenicked layout, but, since I can't accomplish every single one of my modeling goals, that means I'm not a modeler?

There are a number of very important factors today regarding the question of the availability of "modern" passenger/transit equipment that weigh heavily on the matter, but have yet to be addressed in this thread.

1. Passenger/commuter train running/operations using scale models in general interests only to a small fraction of model railroaders, the percentage generally being taken as about one in ten hobbyists. This cited level of interest goes back as long as I have been in the hobby and never seems to change by much. Most consider strictly passenger operations as too mundane and restricted to be of any great interest to them.

2. As with model railroaders in general, the majority of those who do express an interest in primarily passenger railroading gravitate toward the flashy, colorful, passenger trains/interurbans/trolleys of the Transition Era, not today's equipment. The recent appearance of several "big name", full consist, passenger trains of the 40's and 50's by Walters, et al., demonstrates this clearly. Even so, the manufacturers have set them at lofty prices, knowing that sales will be limited.

3. The fact that a number of today's urban transit systems operate "under wire", something that very, very few modelers today are willing to attempt to model, even limits the appeal of these models further.

4. In the past (1980's), companies like Walthers have offered urban transit equipment representing the systems running in Boston, D.C. and on the BART. All of these were very poor sellers and stock lingered in the marketplace for years. Likewise, the original Atlas AEM-7 in NJT, AmTrak, etc., colors issued about a decade ago was a bomb, with sales so poor that the final discounted price was about $20-$30 less than that of the original wholesale figure! While the AEM-7 has been brought back by Atlas as an improved model, I think it is only available in AmTrak livery.

5. Finally, although a few folks want to claim otherwise, young model railroaders - those most likely to want "modern" transit equipment - are in an extreme minority of hobbyists today. While they obviously would like to see models of more up to date equipment they see used locally, other than for a few large systems, like Metro North and ConnDot, interest is too limited and localized to generate a profitable marketplace for such products.

Today's manufacturers are no fools and in a declining marketplace and with a stunted U.S. economy, none of the larger companies is going to be willing to invest in the production of a model that they already know will sell poorly, even in limit run. Thus, those interested in such models absolutely must depend either upon a couple of the cottage industries that produce resin car shells for such equipment...or return to the classic craftsman model railroading approach (whatever happened to that?) and kitbash the models themselves.

CNJ999

I'll third what both CAB and NS3010 said. Such a narrow definition of "modeling" is ridiculous and snobbish. By that definition, many young modelers AND many of the men two, three, and four times their age aren't "modelers" because they would rather spend $1,000 on a subscription release of a name train than buy TSP core kits, car sides, trucks, paint, and decals, and put it all together. The most some of them ever do is change to a long-short coupler configuration so they don't have to fuss with breaking in Walthers diaphragms to make them flex better on curves.

Now, when I was 14 and starting to get into the hobby, I started by collecting. I got one AEM-7, a few Amfleets, a full Acela, and some miscellaneous stuff that I wanted which was all readily available at the time. It was great because I could run "what I rode on." I would have loved some NJT Comet IIs too, but a kid could only buy so much at $20 a car. I would have REALLY loved SEPTA or MARC anything, but SEPTA threw a trademark hissy fit that stopped Walthers from selling cars in their scheme, and not a single coach existed for MARC until 2008 when Island Modelworks released suitable cars, and I made the art that became the first readily available MARC coach decals. (To all out there who dismiss commuter modelers by citing the bad sales of the commuter AEM-7s, this lack of suitable coaches or stand-ins is exactly why all those MARC and SEPTA AEM-7s ended up in the bargain bin while Amtrak AEM-7s and the NJT ALP-44s sold without issue and still fetch high prices online.) Progress a few years, I got more venturous, and put together a Blue Box P42. I was proud of it, and it ran well. Years after that, I got some American GK E60 shells, and started hunting chassis, motors, and other parts to make them work. (It's still not done due to piecing together decals and oddball parts one purchase at a time.) With that, I learned how to airbrush, got more venturous with modifying existing models. (Paint this, cut that, move that around, putty, putty, and more putty.) Now, I'm building what resin kits I can afford, drafting/building what custom parts I can out of styrene, designing my own decals digitally, and figuring out how to make custom models as modern East Coast Amtrak, commuter rail, and rapid transit are nowadays vastly forgotten by major manufacturers. Here's the problems with custom work, though:

- Many parts to do custom work don't exist. Find me parts to build an Amfleet or commuter car from scratch. You'll find no sides, ends, underbody details, window sets, and--in some cases--no trucks. What is RTR is mostly off the market now, and parts don't exist. Decals are also a problem with much after 2000 due to availability and lawsuit-happy railroads neurotically guarding their trademarks.
- Even when parts exist, they are expensive. I've modded a few existing models with a paint touch-up or repair easily, but everything else adds up very quickly. I just bought styrene sides and a roof to turn a long-damaged Budd diner from the stock NYC design into a CB&Q car. The parts alone cost me as much as a new Walthers RTR car with frou-frou metal plating, and that's not including the printing costs for my custom decal sheet that's on the way. Want detail parts? Five bucks for every tiny piece of plastic adds up quickly. Paint? Pray you'll only need one or two colors as they add up quickly too.
- Want to get down to the absolute basics, and build a masterpiece out of styrene? Good freakin' luck. You're hand-carving with X-Acto knives, filing for hours with jewelers' files, and--unless one already has connections to someone with a decent garage and arsenal of tools--then spending money on Dremel tools, airbrush parts, soldering irons, airbrush parts, and so on. It's still very expensive. At 24, I have a limited budget with what work I have. I don't even want to imagine how hard it is for someone younger to find work--let alone work that could support all tools and materials in doing scratch work in this hobby.

Custom work by any means is difficult, expensive, and oftentimes miserable even with the goal of a handmade model in mind. This is made even more difficult as most parts and items available almost all suit mid-century Budd, PS, and ACF designs rather than anything modern. When there's no models, no one can buy. When there's no basics or parts, there's nothing to foster even trying to hand-make something. To fault anyone for not wanting to do custom work--or in many cases, not having the means--to do it is narrow-minded and dickish. Or, Otto, I suppose a distinguished modeler like you would like to stand up to your own standard and show off the BL20WTF and perfect replicas of the MTA Phoebe Snow cars you've built out of Metrocards, pigeon bones, and paper clips?

I'll start out with a question: Why do you suppose most available RTR passenger train stock is based on transition-era products by Budd, P/S, and ACF? I would think it is because that is what sells. The "flashy" streamliners of the fifty's and sixty's were able to garner a big following in their time and since then based on their appearance and regional identity. This appearance and identity is lacking in today's AMTRAK cookie-cutter trains. If any, the homogenous nature of AMTRAK trains should help the sales of these models in that the same set of equipment can be used to model trains in many different parts of the country. With the exception of certain trains in the NEC, current AMTRAK equipment falls into only three types. Superliner, Viewliner, and Amfleet. Shouldn't be much of a challenge to make a collection of that stuff.

I think a problem facing those who model commuter operations is the fact that they, by their very nature, are provincial. It should come as no surprise that the commuter train modelers are concentrated in the Northeast. This naturally limits their market to those who experience the prototype in the here and now. I have no way of really knowing, but I'd doubt if NEC operations have many modelers in other parts of the country. I would also expect to find Florida Tri-Rail; Virginia Railway Express; Sounder; and New Mexico Railrunner modelers to be mostly limited to particular geographical areas.

As has been stated earlier, passenger train modelers are a minority market within the hobby. And regional transit modelers are a niche within a minority. The fact that transit authorities tend to order custom-built equipment compounds the problem. So there is no wonder that models of this equipment is scarce and expensive. There is so limited a market that it is difficult to amortize tooling costs. The more accuracy the modelers demand, the less opportunity for the manufacturers to offer generic products with market-specific paint schemes.

A very good point was made here that sales of certain locomotives were hurt by the lack of appropriate cars for them to pull. The manufacturer can take one of two approaches to correct this: only offer locos that already have appropriate cars for them to pull on the market; or offer the locos and cars together as packaged sets.
The first option limits model availability to what already exists. The second guarantees a hefty price increase for the product.

Why do you suppose transition-era modeling is so popular? A lot of modelers are possessing models of trains they have never even seen in their lifetimes. Apparently, the prototypes were so captivating they can inspire modelers who were not even born during the years the trains operated.

Those who model transition-era or immediate post-transition era passenger operations can host many colorful train operations by modeling a big-city union station.
In that era, there were many terminals where Class One railroads originated, terminated, or interchanged trains and cars between themselves. Perhaps someday this situation will exist again, as regional transit authorities connect with each other with individualized equipment. Today I think this situation exists only in the Northeast and to a limited degree in Chicago.

Les

CNJ999 wrote:There are a number of very important factors today regarding the question of the availability of "modern" passenger/transit equipment that weigh heavily on the matter, but have yet to be addressed in this thread.

1. Passenger/commuter train running/operations using scale models in general interests only to a small fraction of model railroaders, the percentage generally being taken as about one in ten hobbyists. This cited level of interest goes back as long as I have been in the hobby and never seems to change by much. Most consider strictly passenger operations as too mundane and restricted to be of any great interest to them.

The way Amtrak runs across many systems, and with the Abundance of Up-to-Date freight modelers, it still surprises me that Amtrak doesn't show up more.

3. The fact that a number of today's urban transit systems operate "under wire", something that very, very few modelers today are willing to attempt to model, even limits the appeal of these models further.

4. In the past (1980's), companies like Walthers have offered urban transit equipment representing the systems running in Boston, D.C. and on the BART. All of these were very poor sellers and stock lingered in the marketplace for years. Likewise, the original Atlas AEM-7 in NJT, AmTrak, etc., colors issued about a decade ago was a bomb, with sales so poor that the final discounted price was about $20-$30 less than that of the original wholesale figure! While the AEM-7 has been brought back by Atlas as an improved model, I think it is only available in AmTrak livery.

5. Finally, although a few folks want to claim otherwise, young model railroaders - those most likely to want "modern" transit equipment - are in an extreme minority of hobbyists today. While they obviously would like to see models of more up to date equipment they see used locally, other than for a few large systems, like Metro North and ConnDot, interest is too limited and localized to generate a profitable marketplace for such products.

Hold on now, you're taking me out of context. Otto was trying to say that young people weren't model railroads because they couldn't afford to buy things. I just used the expensive and limited run commuter cars as an example of how some younger people are "sinking" themselves striving for these extremely expensive models. The main point I was making is that they could probably build a model railroad if they didn't spend so much money on $100+ individual commuter cars. So many other things can be accomplished with that money.

Certainly, no one denies that commuter modeling is a Niche hobby. When I first joined this forum (back in 2005 when I was 15, nearly 7 years ago), that was one of the very first concepts i was exposed to. I wanted Arrow cars, and nobody made the Arrow III. I drove Mike Bartel of IHP nuts over the prices and such over the then Arrow I kits. Heck, even the very first post I made on this thread pointed out that NO ONE models commuter trains.

Again, I repeat my only surprise is that Amtrak is not as popular as others. Several generations of model railroaders by this point have to have grown up with the familiar Red-white-Blue stripes of Amtrak in one form or another. Unlike commuter railroads with all sorts of odd-ball equipment, the Amfleet coach is a universal passenger car, for close to the last 35 years or so. The same goes with the P42DC locomotives, or the F40PH if you want to go back in time a little.

A lot of people here were unhappy when Walthers retired its Amfleet I, but now I have to wonder, were they retooling it, or are they truly retiring it?

Today's manufacturers are no fools and in a declining marketplace and with a stunted U.S. economy, none of the larger companies is going to be willing to invest in the production of a model that they already know will sell poorly, even in limit run. Thus, those interested in such models absolutely must depend either upon a couple of the cottage industries that produce resin car shells for such equipment...or return to the classic craftsman model railroading approach (whatever happened to that?) and kitbash the models themselves.

CNJ999

As far as "craftsmen" modeling goes, Its probably as dead as the commuter trains. I do quite a bit of kitbashing and heavy modifications to things. I've even scratchbuilt scale catenary, (from protoype plans with just brass stock). There are several brick walls that i've hit in my attempts to learn "craftsmen" skills.

1.)Lack of resources
2.)Lack of Tools
3.)Lack of Materials

There is not a whole lot out there that will help people get started. While there are many articles on kitbashing and other projects, they tend to be very generic, a quick walkthrough of what the author did. They do not really teach the techniques involved or give tips. To those of us who have been cutting and fitting and shaping models and their components for years, this seems sort of silly. If I tasked you with, say, replacing the Inertial Air Filter hatch on a EMD locomotive with a Cannon & Co equivalent, I'm sure you could see in your mind exactly how to do that right now. If it were me, I'd bust out some sort of drilling tool and creat a series of holes, chop out the old had, sand it all smooth, fill in with a styrene sheet, and glue on the cannon part. Done.

However, to a new person, this is a frightening and confusing task. They may conisder just sitting there sanding it down for hours. They might not be sure how much to take off, or how to do it. They may not have the proper tools, or not know which tool is better suited.

All of these things take practice, and yes, there is a learning curve, mistakes will be made. However, when we're talking about cutting into a model that cost quite a bit of our hard earned money (with locomotives these days going for higher prices than ever), the pressure can be enough to not want to attempt it. And that is just a simple task! More serious rebuilds require more effort and knowledge than that.

Modelers also lack prototype resources. Using the commuter cars as an example, you can see why it is unpopular to kitbash these things. The internet is vast, but it doesn't have everything, and one can look for years before they find something useful. For example, If I wanted scale drawings of a Comet I coach, where would i find them? If no one has the drawings, i'm S.O.L. It is no simple task to go measure out a commuter coach. Good luck getting permission from a commuter agency to go measure out a train for a model. They're a business and you don't have a real reason to be there.

Then you have the lack of proper tools. While the basics can be had, and many things can be done with the average "modeler's tool kit" from companies like Micro Mark, these tools are often not ideal for the job and contribute to an unnecessary amount of work. For example, I've been soldering together Catenary structures. I have a large Weller Soldering gun (100/120 Watt), and a Radioshack dual power 20/40 watt soldering Iron. These tools are great for most soldering applications on the model railroad, like wire connections beneath the layout, or soldering track sections together. However, in terms of soldering together brass structures, these tools are unweidly at best. What I really need is a resistance soldering machine, but these are expensive, close to the cost of High End sound locomotives, and higher, depending on the wattage. They also don't seem to be sitting on the shelves of the average Radioshack.

This is just one example of the many highly specialized (and expensive) tools that would be required to do some of the more advanced projects. When we discuss modeling commuter prototypes, for example, a GP40PH-2, the body shell is probably easy enough to assemble with basic tools (I've seen examples of the SP version done in the internet), and shouldn't pose a problem to a modeler with reasonable kitbashing skills.

However, what do you mount that beautiful kitbashed shell onto? The prototype is slightly longer than an SD45. Suppose we stick with the SD45 frame, how do we mount Blomberg trucks on the SD frame? Where do we even get these trucks? More importantly, how to we modify the frame itself to take up the proper appearance? the SD45 fuel tank may have a block of metal in it that needs to be cut back. In many cases, the motors are sunk into the fuel tank to make room for electronics, so now the whole thing would have be rearranged.

And lets not forget that the metal they make these frames out of is not nearly as simple or forgiving to work with as plastic. The clear answer is a milling machine, but again, these are expensive tools that not many people have access to. Unless you plan to do alot of milling, it may not even pay to have the machine around. touching on the previous point, you'd also have to expend a lot just to learn to use it properly.

Then you get to the actual materials at your disposal. Without proper documentation and plans, "stock" pieces, like plastic, metal, and wood shapes aren't particularly useful. You also have to be REALLY good at just synthesizing model parts from these blank "nothings" of materials. Whats more, if you're trying to kitbash any diesel that ISN'T an EMD locomotive, or derived from an EMD locomotive, your parts availability drops.

For example, if i wanted to build a model of a C39-8, I'd need a C32-8 shell, and then I'd need an 8-door engine compartment section (the C32-8 Only has a 6 door engine compartment). there is no "Cannon & Co" GE parts, no engine hood doors, no arched roof. Hi-tech details produces U-boat thinwall cabs, and a few of the equipment boxes/exhaust stacks, but thats the extent of it. You'll also need a full size Dash-8 frame (the athearn U-boat frame won't cut it for the longer C39-8). This means buying a C40-8/C40-8W of some kind, of which the only matching models are produced by Bachman Spectrum and Atlas. These go for roughly $100. They can be found, but now you could find yourself chopping apart up to two or three different models to kitbash just one locomotive. Its extroadarily wasteful and expensive.

Hell, If someone wanted to kitbash something like an E44, there is another HUGE operation. No one sells detail parts that match that locomotive. The closest thing existing to it is an E33 by Bachmann, and inorder to get it to look like an E44, it would have to have more seams in it than the frankenstein monster. Not to mention, you'd have to cannibalize other rare and out of production models to get the proper pantographs and other details to fill it out.

The end result won't even look that super fantastic, it will just be a "stand in" model. It might not have been to hard to build the E44 from styrene, but the fact is no one makes the GE engine doors required to put it together, So even if I had the skills to kitbash the thing or scratchbuild the sides, there are few options for me to accomplish this in a efficient manner.

For some prototypes there aren't even models you can kitbash parts from to get there. combined with no plans/measurements or information, and without the proper tools, good luck with that!


TL;DR- By the time you bought all the expensive specialized tools, and learned all the skills to properly kitbash or scratchbuild most things, you could have probably afforded to buy the expensive niche company's models, and used your time to actually get something done on the rest of your layout.

Desertdweller wrote:I'll start out with a question: Why do you suppose most available RTR passenger train stock is based on transition-era products by Budd, P/S, and ACF? I would think it is because that is what sells. The "flashy" streamliners of the fifty's and sixty's were able to garner a big following in their time and since then based on their appearance and regional identity. This appearance and identity is lacking in today's AMTRAK cookie-cutter trains. If any, the homogenous nature of AMTRAK trains should help the sales of these models in that the same set of equipment can be used to model trains in many different parts of the country. With the exception of certain trains in the NEC, current AMTRAK equipment falls into only three types. Superliner, Viewliner, and Amfleet. Shouldn't be much of a challenge to make a collection of that stuff.

This is the problem though, it IS a challenge. Amfleets and viewliners are very difficult to find, at least in my corner of the world. Those in my circle of friends are constantly digging for them. They aren't on hobby shop shelves, and they frequently aren't available from online sources. You can go for Ebay, but thats hit or miss, since you can never tell if you're getting someones junk, and then you have to compete with people who also are trying to build a fleet. Prices get way above what they were bought for. The last few shows I went to, the sellers seemed to be aware of this as well, and Amtrak cars get snatched up if they are in good shape, especially the most recent prototypes in Phase IV or V paint.

I'll only agree that I seem to be tripping over Superliners in the passenger car section of most hobby shops I visit. Apparently, the homogeny isn't helping that much!

Why do you suppose transition-era modeling is so popular? A lot of modelers are possessing models of trains they have never even seen in their lifetimes. Apparently, the prototypes were so captivating they can inspire modelers who were not even born during the years the trains operated.

Those who model transition-era or immediate post-transition era passenger operations can host many colorful train operations by modeling a big-city union station.
In that era, there were many terminals where Class One railroads originated, terminated, or interchanged trains and cars between themselves. Perhaps someday this situation will exist again, as regional transit authorities connect with each other with individualized equipment. Today I think this situation exists only in the Northeast and to a limited degree in Chicago.

Les

Personally, I've always been frustrated with the extreme focus on the transition era. I will not deny that it has a lot of highly appealing prototypes (colorful trains, steam and diesel, round houses and turntables, etc), but it almost bores me because that is literally all I see in most magazines and books. I'm talking in terms of general trains, not particularly passenger trains.

I suspect it is because for a long time, the only model railroaders were that core group who were either young or born just after the Lionel boom and the transition era, who remember the old lionel sets and or the real transition era itself. After an apparent decline in the hobby during the last few decades, its been this core group that have been directing the hobby, since "new blood" with more modern interests didn't really show up in any real quantity.

the only modeling era that can hold a candle to the Transition era stuff is the absolute modern day, but only in the freight category. Usually, if its not Transition Era on the cover of Model railroader or RMC, Its some sort of super modern EMD or GE product (THis months Model Railroader, with the Utah Belt, is a perfect example). I do not know any model railroader under the age of 25 who models the transition era, They pretty much all build Industrial Short Line layouts, or stick to modern prototypes like CSX, NS, UP, or BNSF. Lance Mindheim's Miami layout seems to be the inspiration for this young generation. The only young people i know who aren't doing ISL layouts are the ones here on railroad.net, but maybe they just haven't gotten that far in construction.

Still, transition era is frustratingly pervasive, since it can even be difficult to find good articles and information on many modern types of equipment in the sea of "back in the day" articles. I find myself frequently hunting back issues from over 20 years ago to get a good article on something like a Conrail C32-8, or ten years ago to get a drawing of a ALP46. Since these model railroad magazines are pretty much the only people who actually go out and get the information (because they are paid to do it and can get onto railroad property to do it), they're the only real sources. Asking an Operations question about a transition era railroad is no sweat. Model railroader repeats itself every year or so with just different authors and slightly different articles on the same things.

apply that question to the modern day, and you have to seek out particular people and do heavy amounts of research. I personally don't mind so much, but it can get maddening after a while, especially if you're trying to do a reasonably competent job of representing something you see today (i'm just talking in geners, such as local freight or whatever).

EJJM,

I cannot disagree with what you said. Your point about younger modelers not being interested in transition-era is well taken. I have not been around young model railroaders for a long time.

I do think it is sad that many younger modelers consider passenger operations to be unworthy of modeling. If I were modeling a current-era freight operation, I would certainly want a little passenger operation in the mix to provide variety. Even an occasional run-by of an AMTRAK train would break up the tempo. If the operation were located near a big city with commuter service, all the better because the commuter equipment could help provide regional identity for the railroad.

In the western half of this country, from, say, the Mississippi River to the California state line, AMTRAK operation is, as far as I know, limited to Superliner operation.
And the trains themselves are generally not remade at terminals. Typically, a set of Superliner equipment on arrival at an end terminal is cleaned and restocked, and continues on its merry way, often under a different name. But a passing Superliner gives a reason for the freight equipment to get in the clear, maybe even it would make a station stop.

Les

green_elite_cab wrote: Hold on now, you're taking me out of context. Otto was trying to say that young people weren't model railroads because they couldn't afford to buy things. I just used the expensive and limited run commuter cars as an example of how some younger people are "sinking" themselves striving for these extremely expensive models. The main point I was making is that they could probably build a model railroad if they didn't spend so much money on $100+ individual commuter cars. So many other things can be accomplished with that money.

This right here is THE one and only reason why I do not model commuter operations. I started off trying to build a layout, a freight fleet, and a commuter fleet, all at the same time. I was successful to a degree. The layout is getting closer and closer to completion by the day, I have enough freight cars to fill my operating plan (up next is the wishlist stuff...), and I completed one commuter locomotive. I finally realized (very recently) that I cannot do all three at the same time. I just don't have enough money. I have a small budget, and there's only enough room in it for two of the three sets of modeling goals. There's no way around it.

Never ONCE have I not been able to model something that I want due to it not being available in any form (this is not to say that everyone can find everything they want; this is personal). Everything I have ever wanted has been available in some way. Yes, some things require some work (resin kits, painting a whole fleet of locomotives and cars, you name it), but I can somehow get what I want. Maybe others feel differently, but I believe that train manufacturers are not missing THIS modeler.

Maybe we should "Occupy Walthers" to get our point across to develop affordable models for "modern" commuter railroaders...lol.

I partially disagree on commuter railroading being regionally specific....I have friends who moved to California and New Mexico & also a friend who lives in Europe and are searching high and low for New York City specific models, i.e. R21 silver & blue NYCTA subway sets & NJ Transit commuter cars. I have a guy I blog with in Australia who wants Walthers Amtrak Phase IV Horizon cars. I tell them constantly, good luck finding them.

Yes, they can search eBay, go to train shows or swap meets but for a teenager or a newbie starting in the hobby and may only ride or commute on what they see "outside their window", there's a disconnect with the major manufacturers and current modellers. All they have to do is watch eBay to know there's a desire still for commuter passenger cars.

3 Metro North horizon cars sold for close to $190!!

This is now the "Ready to Run" community of modellers coming into the hobby and one of the reasons Athearn got out of the "blue box" kit business.

Also, why release RTR locomotives with no RTR matching passenger cars and vice versa??

For instance some of the recent HO releases within the last 2-3 years:

Atlas Trainman LIRR GP38-2, released 2 years ago----no matching passenger cars available.
Atlas NJT GP40, same as above, although you have to hunt and peck to find the old Walthers horizon cars for a decent price.
Atlas Metro North B23-7, same as above.
Walthers Trainline Metra F40PH....re-released with new motor, no matching Metra bi-levels available.
Rapido NH McGuiness Osgood Bradley cars....matching RTR loco?
Athearn Bombardier Cal-Train...matching RTR loco?

I go through the train mags and search the manufacturers' website religiously anticipating new releases and hoping matching passenger cars or locos for my current fleet. And to this day I still get disappointed to hear "we'll take it up with our designers".

If the hobby is to continue to grow, there has to more appeal to the "newbies"...

Desertdweller wrote:EJJM,

I cannot disagree with what you said. Your point about younger modelers not being interested in transition-era is well taken. I have not been around young model railroaders for a long time.

I do think it is sad that many younger modelers consider passenger operations to be unworthy of modeling. If I were modeling a current-era freight operation, I would certainly want a little passenger operation in the mix to provide variety. Even an occasional run-by of an AMTRAK train would break up the tempo. If the operation were located near a big city with commuter service, all the better because the commuter equipment could help provide regional identity for the railroad.

In the western half of this country, from, say, the Mississippi River to the California state line, AMTRAK operation is, as far as I know, limited to Superliner operation.
And the trains themselves are generally not remade at terminals. Typically, a set of Superliner equipment on arrival at an end terminal is cleaned and restocked, and continues on its merry way, often under a different name. But a passing Superliner gives a reason for the freight equipment to get in the clear, maybe even it would make a station stop.

Les

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. The only thing I would say may not be the case entirely, is that young people don't consider passenger trains worthy. Plenty of them do. Many have a small passenger train, but its usually an impulse buy. More often than not, I suspect these popular "ISLs" are the result of trying to get something realistic down into a small amount of space.

In an ironic way, modern commuter trains lend themselves more to small passenger trains than many of the older trains (excluding doodlebugs and RDCs of course), since they can be short, three car trains, and they don't need to be turned around, ever. If you model any passenger train from before 1968 (with the arrival of the Comet I, the original push-pull set), You get stuck with trains that either need to be turned, or the locomotive has to run around. It can simply be put in reverse for its return trip.

Again though, a hypothetical three car NJ transit model is more like 4' long, since the locomotive can add 6"to 8" to the length of the train. This will take up a lot of space that could be used to do other things on an HO scale layout. In terms of the younger modelers I've encountered, I think its a space thing more than anything else, followed by Money, then lack of interest.

ns3010 wrote: Maybe others feel differently, but I believe that train manufacturers are not missing THIS modeler.

Exactly! As I mentioned in the beginning, they aren't missing whats popular to model amongst young people, Its just that the neighbor had niche interests.

B44NYC wrote:Maybe we should "Occupy Walthers" to get our point across to develop affordable models for "modern" commuter railroaders...lol.

I partially disagree on commuter railroading being regionally specific....I have friends who moved to California and New Mexico & also a friend who lives in Europe and are searching high and low for New York City specific models, i.e. R21 silver & blue NYCTA subway sets & NJ Transit commuter cars. I have a guy I blog with in Australia who wants Walthers Amtrak Phase IV Horizon cars. I tell them constantly, good luck finding them.

I wonder what they would do is people actually did camp out front of Walthers....

They are still few and far between. We all know people (especially on these boards) who value commuter trains. However, if you go anywhere else, you'll be alone. I can only assume that most of us who post here live or have lived in the Northeast, since these forums seem to have whole sections belonging to individual eastern commuter railroads.

Yes, they can search eBay, go to train shows or swap meets but for a teenager or a newbie starting in the hobby and may only ride or commute on what they see "outside their window", there's a disconnect with the major manufacturers and current modellers. All they have to do is watch eBay to know there's a desire still for commuter passenger cars.

3 Metro North horizon cars sold for close to $190!!

I think Ebay gives a false sense of reality. There may be a demand, but my experience is that Niche models also entail very "unique" people. I'm sure i'll get hit for this, but a lot of the commuter modelers I know (talking across all age groups) are some of the most crazy and persistent people I know.

Whether they are truly crazy to start out with, or the limited availability has driven otherwise normal modelers into a "I may never see that model again!" anxiety-frenzy, I cannot say.

I'd hate to find out that I'm part of the former category, and I know I've felt like part of the latter. I pride myself in very rarely overpaying for anything. Most of my commuter cars I've got, i bought for below their usual value.

Back to the point, however, people are NUTS. The perceived lack of some model drives the more unstable of modelers to push bids like that up to the heights you've seen. If they're getting three cars for $190, that might not be so bad. While they are paying more than they were originally worth, it doesn't translate to that much more than what three recent Walthers Passenger cars would cost.

Still, i've seen $120 over a dummy Metroliner MU, and it was one of the crappy "toy" runs.

I wouldn't mistake that for a wide spread demand for commuter cars, i would see it as a couple of nuts on Ebay.

This is now the "Ready to Run" community of modellers coming into the hobby and one of the reasons Athearn got out of the "blue box" kit business.

Also, why release RTR locomotives with no RTR matching passenger cars and vice versa??

For instance some of the recent HO releases within the last 2-3 years:

Atlas Trainman LIRR GP38-2, released 2 years ago----no matching passenger cars available.
Atlas NJT GP40, same as above, although you have to hunt and peck to find the old Walthers horizon cars for a decent price.
Atlas Metro North B23-7, same as above.
Walthers Trainline Metra F40PH....re-released with new motor, no matching Metra bi-levels available.
Rapido NH McGuiness Osgood Bradley cars....matching RTR loco?
Athearn Bombardier Cal-Train...matching RTR loco?

I go through the train mags and search the manufacturers' website religiously anticipating new releases and hoping matching passenger cars or locos for my current fleet. And to this day I still get disappointed to hear "we'll take it up with our designers".

If the hobby is to continue to grow, there has to more appeal to the "newbies"...

[/quote]

Well, Technically, the NJ Transit GP40 is a Work locomotive, and Atlas did release set of NJ Transit Gondolas and a Caboose that matched.

same is true of the MN B23-7, though i don't know if they have cars for them.

As for the others, many of the locomotives or cars were available at some point. LIRR cars can be found, and plenty of Metra cars are out there, even if difficult to find.

You can be sure all of those were limited or one time runs. I doubt we'll see another NJ Transit GP40 for many years.

The last couple of posts are zeroing in on just why passenger and local commuter trains find so few HO modelling enthusiasts, especially among younger hobbyists, thereby justifying manufacturer's reluctance to produce same.

The average model railroader, regardless of age, has limited space in which to build a layout. Neither small roundy-round, nor limited-size point-to-point switching layouts, are well suited to passenger train operations beyond perhaps an occasional RDC, or doodlebug. Only a small percentage of hobbyists, most of them older established modelers, have the basement-filling empires one sees in magazines like MR and where commuter, or full-sized passenger train operations, can be made to appear at least reasonably believable.

On the more typical of HO layouts, say 4' or 6' by 10', or an around walls point-to-point of 16' run, commuter trains are rarely going to have the luxury of more than two station stops and even these will be less (often far less) than a scale quarter mile apart. Shuttling back and forth, or in a loop, between these stations is hardly a situation to excite most hobbyists, especially when compared with the potential of multiple switching moves and the associated complexity of modern or period freight operations. Without the luxury of owning a home, living either with their parents, or in a temporary rental situation, younger hobbyists are often, as Otto has indicated, limited to mostly collecting, not building major detailed layouts. This does not constitute much of a potential, nor viable, market.

Again, simply put, the market for inexpensive national, or the diverse regional commuter passenger equipment and motivepower, simply is too small to justify the major manuafactures offering such models. It still amazes me to see just what has been offered over the years! As I had said earlier, I think that the manufacturers have learned their lesson from their production failures of the past and will stay mainly with high-end, limited run, famous-name passenger trains in time to come.

CNJ999

CNJ999 wrote:The last couple of posts are zeroing in on just why passenger and local commuter trains find so few HO modelling enthusiasts, especially among younger hobbyists, thereby justifying manufacturer's reluctance to produce same.

Yup, it sure does feel like the battle is not ending in my favor, but I still have ONE ace left....

On the more typical of HO layouts, say 4' or 6' by 10', or an around walls point-to-point of 16' run, commuter trains are rarely going to have the luxury of more than two station stops and even these will be less (often far less) than a scale quarter mile apart. Shuttling back and forth, or in a loop, between these stations is hardly a situation to excite most hobbyists, especially when compared with the potential of multiple switching moves and the associated complexity of modern or period freight operations.

This is a really simplified view. In terms of incorporating the random commuter train into a freight layout, fine. For many, just breaking up the monotony is good enough.

However, If one wanted to get crazy, there ARE two model railroader track plans that are just 2' longer than your example (6x12), And though they probably won't run any long or large commuter trains, There is more than just shuttling back in forth. Both feature a junction of two branches of some sort, and make for an interesting operation, in that in order to keep trains moving on a schedule, you'd have to throw the interlockings correctly for all the trains "shuttling" around.

Heck, the only reason i'm picky of this sort of layout is because it loops over itself to much for my liking. Keeping commuter trains on the proper route and on time can be its own sort of challenge. Its certainly more fast paced than the slow shifting of boxcars from one place to another. Similarly, I'd like to say a reasonably sized freight railroad that shifts traffic like this.

All that is needed is some creativity and some out of the box thinking. Depending on how one wants to build their layout, elements of the below track plan can be incorporated into a layout that also features industrial switching (perhaps with the commuter line on a viaduct or embankment above the freight tracks?). Creative use of scenery to hide nearby stations can increase the effect appearance wise.





Thats about all the fight I have left on the subject though.

I already knew it would end this way when the thread started.

Without the luxury of owning a home, living either with their parents, or in a temporary rental situation, younger hobbyists are often, as Otto has indicated, limited to mostly collecting, not building major detailed layouts. This does not constitute much of a potential, nor viable, market.

Well, again, I did point out that this website was an anomaly with a lot of young people owning some sort of commuter model. not disagreeing, just saying.

Again, simply put, the market for inexpensive national, or the diverse regional commuter passenger equipment and motivepower, simply is too small to justify the major manuafactures offering such models. It still amazes me to see just what has been offered over the years! As I had said earlier, I think that the manufacturers have learned their lesson from their production failures of the past and will stay mainly with high-end, limited run, famous-name passenger trains in time to come.

CNJ999

I agree, but even what has been offered will never be enough for us crazy people who love to model them so much. I guess its just going to be overpriced and unprototypical Bachmann amfleets for now.

Kinda depressing actually. It kinda makes me feel sorta lonely in this hobby.

Green_elite_cab - In fact I, too, years ago loved complex old-time track designs like the two that your most recent post contained. RMC was great for running trackplans of similar design criteria back in the day when you really did have to be a craftsman modeler to be a model railroader. My all time favorite layout idea was an RMC version of the CNJ's commuter operation running out of the Jersey City Terminal that must have appeared 40+ years ago in the magazine. Today I guess that it would be regarded as a horrible spaghetti-bowl of trackage affair. Nevertheless, through a clever up-over-and-across-itself design it managed to include 6 or 7 reasonably separated station stops in a space about the same as your posted designs (did those happen to come from RMC, by the way?). Always having been a CNJ enthusiast, I even seriously considered tackling the layout, way back when.

To be honest, I feel that today's shift toward ever increasing RTR equipment and the lust after ultra-superdetailed models are in large part responsible to the lack of affordable commuter cars in today's marketplace. Were hobbyists still mostly true modelers less willing to spend big bucks in exchange for an unwillingness to learn the hobby, I think that the manufacturers might be offering simpler kit models capable of being modified into at least reasonable stand-in versions of many commuter and long distance trains. Availability of inexpensive, rather generic, models in the past stimulated many practical and clever modification articles in the magazines which now, with the rise of RTR, have ceased to be of interest. Through the years I built many pleasing models based on MR and RMC articles and at very modest cost.

In one of your posts you lament the lack of detailed parts necessary to modify existing models, but that again is a direct result of the RTR fad. As cheap kits disappeared from the marketplace, along with the magazine articles on how to modify them, the parts suppliers dropped out of the market. Basic detail items I used to pay $.50 for not all that long ago I currently see on eBay selling for $5 !

Sadly, the hobby is transitioning from a craftsman modeling pursuit to basically buy-and-run HO tinplate.

CNJ999

EJJM,

I especially like the second track plan.

A person living in a small apartment on a tight budget can still enjoy having a model railroad. As I said earlier, I had a 4x6' layout in college. This was HO, but if I were to do it again, it would be N-scale, and maybe even smaller. Back in 1968, when I became an active model railroader, N-scale equipment was both scarce and crude.

Turning passenger trains does not require a weye or reverse loop. If you have a locomotive-hauled train, all you need is a pass track long enough to set the cars in the clear. You could use a double-track main with crossovers if you have the room. A locomotive capable of bi-directional operation could be a road-switcher type, or simply two single-ended units back to back.

Unless you insist on keeping head-end cars on the head-end, and/or a dedicated tail car, the train consist can be operated backwards for the return run. This is not a big deal. Coaches, diners, most lounges, and sleepers are bi-directional. Head-end cars were often operated at the rear. Modern trains do not really have a head or tail end. With Superliner equipment, even baggage cars can operate anywhere in a consist. Otherwise, the head-end cars can be set to the run-around track after the power is run around, and picked up next to the power.

Another advantage of the Superliner cars (and any bi-levels, for that matter) is they reduce the number of cars necessary to carry a given number of passengers. So the number of cars needed to handle the intended passenger load can be nearly halved. This could save the modeler some money, as well as track capacity required.

If you have a small train and need to turn your power, one of your loco units can be a dummy without hurting performance. Diodes in each unit will allow a headlight burning in the direction of travel only.

There is an old saying "There is a prototype for anything." If that is taken too seriously, some pretty ludicrous examples can turn up. But, I recall that the Reading Crusader operated without turning its cars by having an observation lounge on both ends! Apparently, no baggage cars were carried.

Les