Are train manufacturers missing Generation X?

CNJ999 wrote: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.

They are Model Railroader trackplans, though I'd love to see this RMC one. I know i have a ton of RMC back issues around, i might be able to look for it.

The CNJ would definitely be interesting between the Geeps and the Fairbanks-Morse diesels. Do they sell the coaches that match the CNJ trains? I'm assuming making one of those "cab cars" is going to be a project, lol.

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.

I know I have felt this. I remember when I really was just starting out, I could get "big" diesels like a C44-9W in HO for $50 as a blue box kit. Was it Perfect? no. If i Had that same kit today, could I make something amazing? You know it. unfortunately, I kept letting blue box kits slip through my fingers, and now it can be truly difficult to find any sort of locomotive kit at all. That same locomotive now is an RTR $100+ model.

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

thank you! the price is another thing. It cost me nearly $70 to purchase all the detail parts for a locomotive. though they often come in multiples in a pack, It still adds up fast!

Its probably one of the reasons I haven't done any major detailing in a while.

Desertdweller wrote: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

Still, a Push-pull doesn't even require the shifting of the locomotive, it just stays where it is. This may suck some operation out of it, but its also less track work to worry about. its the perfect kind of train for point to point staging.

I recognize that larger train consists might not need to be turned, but the locomotives still do, unless of course you use something bidirectional, like an Electric locomotive.

Just out of curiosity, are there really any examples of road-switcher types on mainline passenger (not commuter) trains? ATSF's U28CGs come to mind, and SAL had SDP35s. there are SP's SDP45s and GP40Ps, and athearn offered an SDP40, so i assume there is a prototype for that. Still, that's a limited number of engines, and i haven't seen photos of them running long hood forward.

Bi-levels may save space, but NJ transit seems to operate 14 car trains of them (as opposed to 8 single level cars that used to be the norm). If only it made any sense to model that! That would make an awesome train.....

Speaking of the Crusader, the Later era version of that train (and some other Diesel SEPTA trains), featured two FP7s on each end of the train, connected by a long MU cable that went across the roofs of the coaches.

Lots of modeling opportunity there, tough a little outside my modeling area..

EJJM,

If the problem is high-priced locomotives keeping younger modelers away, the Athern Blue-Box kits should offer a solution. I had a few of them when I was in HO, and considered them a good value. They really weren't much of a kit. The roadswitchers and switchers needed the handrails installed. Cab units were RTR in the box.
Of course, all of them benefited from added detail, but that was really optional.

It doesn't make sense to me that modelers would complain about expensive locomotives while rejecting Blue-Box kits that include the same drives and shells.

I also miss the construction/kitbashing articles in the magazines. Homespun modifications can be very satisfying. I remember building an A-B-B-A set of CGW F-7s.
I removed dynamic brake detail and installed home made antennas. Only the B units were powered. I installed scratchbuilt cab interiors in the A units, and airbrushed and decaled the shells. I had a lot of fun researching and building these, wound up with something not commercially available at the time, and spent only a little bit more than the cost of the models I started with.

The magazines seem to me to put undue emphasis on DCC systems. I'll grant that is what their advertisers are pushing, but that is also pushing up the cost of locomotives. When non-DCC locomotives are offered as "DCC ready", that readiness increases the price for those who do not use DCC and have no intention of converting the locomotive to DCC. While DCC is no doubt nice for those who give it a priority, I really doubt its cost/benefit for the average model railroad. Lots of print is given to its advantages: the ability to power on-board sound systems and the absence of need for power blocks. No mention is made of greatly increased cost per unit, or the loss of the ability to run virtually any locomotive off the shelf without additional cost or modification. Not every model railroader wants to make a secondary hobby of electronics, nor wants to buy a model railroad magazine to read articles on electronics. DPDT switches and wire are cheap, and, once installed, are permanent and work for all locomotives.

My comments on double-ended locomotive consists were based on the classical two cab units back-to-back. Hood units used in double-ended single unit applications were generally with high short hoods (containing steam generators). Some had control stands on both sides of the cab, some didn't. Passenger Geeps were used by many railroads: PRR, GN, MILW, UP, ATSF, NW, CNW come to mind. Some railroads used passenger SD's: CBQ, SP, GN.

Yes, there were SDP-40's and SDP-45's. GN (later BN) used them. So did SP use SDP-45's. These were not the cowl units AMTRAK used, but regular hood units with extended frames (for room for water tanks for steam generators). The steam generators on those units were housed in a squared-off extension on the long hood, so they used a low short hood. And they didn't run long hood forward.

These passenger hood units were used on regular passenger trains, but not usually the flagship streamliners. They were used on secondary passenger trains, mail trains, and mixed trains. A few railroads used them on everything (GN, SP). Some (NW, WAB) used them on everything because that is all they had.

The only pictures I recall of the Crusader had the bi-directional consist pulled by a streamlined steam engine. The arrangement you described was interesting. That must have been one long MU cable (would hate to wrestle with that on a cold day). Nowadays, that situation would be easily handled by using distributed power. I wonder why they didn't just trainline the rear units and run the whole shebang from the head units. Was the train really long enough to require four units?

Les

green-elite:

Until NJ Transit first modified the GP40P's with HEP to make them compatible with the Comet equipment, they regularly ran long hood first, particularly in NY&LB/NJCL service, as Harrison didn't have turning facilities and the units were run around their trains. Non push pull CNJ Mainline/NJT Raritan Valley consists were operated in the same manner.

For example:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4102drc.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4103drc.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4107hrc.jpg

Desertdweller wrote:EJJM,

If the problem is high-priced locomotives keeping younger modelers away, the Athern Blue-Box kits should offer a solution. I had a few of them when I was in HO, and considered them a good value. They really weren't much of a kit. The roadswitchers and switchers needed the handrails installed. Cab units were RTR in the box.
Of course, all of them benefited from added detail, but that was really optional.

It doesn't make sense to me that modelers would complain about expensive locomotives while rejecting Blue-Box kits that include the same drives and shells.

Well, that's why the majority of my early locomotives are all Athearn. When I started getting more money, though, I started leaning towards Atlas. To be fair, a lot of the models i wanted weren't necessarily available in the form of blue box kits at the time. Now that blue box kits are discontinued, its not really all that simple to go out and buy them.

If you pick up an older blue box, the locomotive might not even be "scale". I have a GP7 and a GP35 from Athearn's old line, and they don't fit in.

I also miss the construction/kitbashing articles in the magazines. Homespun modifications can be very satisfying. I remember building an A-B-B-A set of CGW F-7s.
I removed dynamic brake detail and installed home made antennas. Only the B units were powered. I installed scratchbuilt cab interiors in the A units, and airbrushed and decaled the shells. I had a lot of fun researching and building these, wound up with something not commercially available at the time, and spent only a little bit more than the cost of the models I started with.

Yup, I sorta miss that to. Ever since starting college, I've had less and less time. I used to pump out one or two locomotives a year. They may have came in relatively RTR, but I'd get in there and cut them up, and add the details. The last one I did, i nearly rebuilt the entire body shell, though it still needs work.

If I can find the decals, I have a second ALP46 electric shell that I plant to go all out on as well.

The magazines seem to me to put undue emphasis on DCC systems. I'll grant that is what their advertisers are pushing, but that is also pushing up the cost of locomotives. When non-DCC locomotives are offered as "DCC ready", that readiness increases the price for those who do not use DCC and have no intention of converting the locomotive to DCC. While DCC is no doubt nice for those who give it a priority, I really doubt its cost/benefit for the average model railroad. Lots of print is given to its advantages: the ability to power on-board sound systems and the absence of need for power blocks. No mention is made of greatly increased cost per unit, or the loss of the ability to run virtually any locomotive off the shelf without additional cost or modification. Not every model railroader wants to make a secondary hobby of electronics, nor wants to buy a model railroad magazine to read articles on electronics. DPDT switches and wire are cheap, and, once installed, are permanent and work for all locomotives.

I suppose, but depending on your DCC system, its not that much of a "secondary hobby." While I can appreciate the cheaper prices, I can't say that I don't prefer DCC, especially on my small layout, where I might be trying to coordinate two different locomotives that are near to each other. In some ways, a complex DC system to control multiple trains is more of a wiring job than is DCC. I had started off blockwiring my layout before I got DCC roughly 5 years ago.

My comments on double-ended locomotive consists were based on the classical two cab units back-to-back. Hood units used in double-ended single unit applications were generally with high short hoods (containing steam generators). Some had control stands on both sides of the cab, some didn't. Passenger Geeps were used by many railroads: PRR, GN, MILW, UP, ATSF, NW, CNW come to mind. Some railroads used passenger SD's: CBQ, SP, GN.

Yes, there were SDP-40's and SDP-45's. GN (later BN) used them. So did SP use SDP-45's. These were not the cowl units AMTRAK used, but regular hood units with extended frames (for room for water tanks for steam generators). The steam generators on those units were housed in a squared-off extension on the long hood, so they used a low short hood. And they didn't run long hood forward.

These passenger hood units were used on regular passenger trains, but not usually the flagship streamliners. They were used on secondary passenger trains, mail trains, and mixed trains. A few railroads used them on everything (GN, SP). Some (NW, WAB) used them on everything because that is all they had.

I'd seen many of those. I'm surprised they didn't run long hood forward. The CNJ did that with its GP40Ps all the time. Still, not much space savings there, even if you assume they can run long hood forward. The Push-pull is the ultimate in efficiency.

The only pictures I recall of the Crusader had the bi-directional consist pulled by a streamlined steam engine. The arrangement you described was interesting. That must have been one long MU cable (would hate to wrestle with that on a cold day). Nowadays, that situation would be easily handled by using distributed power. I wonder why they didn't just trainline the rear units and run the whole shebang from the head units. Was the train really long enough to require four units?

I mis-typed. There were only three Reading FP7s left, and two of them would run the train, one on each end (not two, I recognize i typed that wrong). The third was a back up. They'd placed the MU cables across the top of the five car train and then run the entire train as a single unit, kind of like the Acela Express. The engineer would simply walk from one FP7 to the Other and reverse direction. Apparently, the Crusader and Wall street eventually became replaced with RDCs, and the FP7 push-pulls operated between Reading and Philadelphia until SEPTA ceased all non-electric operations.

The FP7s were bought to replace the streamlined steamers, and were the last non RDC passenger diesels left on the Reading Company by the 1970s.

Earle Baldwin wrote:green-elite:

Until NJ Transit first modified the GP40P's with HEP to make them compatible with the Comet equipment, they regularly ran long hood first, particularly in NY&LB/NJCL service, as Harrison didn't have turning facilities and the units were run around their trains. Non push pull CNJ Mainline/NJT Raritan Valley consists were operated in the same manner.

For example:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4102drc.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4103drc.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/njdot/njt4107hrc.jpg

Thats why I asked, since actual double ended diesels are not common in this country at all. I figured that the other railroads might have operated their GP and SD passenger engines in the same manner as the CNJ GP40Ps (later NJ DOT then NJT).

This thread seems to be veering away from What's Up With Kids Today? to Where's the Passenger Train Model I Want? so I'll try and address the first question.
It's become such a cliche to complain the hobby is aging/dying out but I have to admit it's a little weird to go to model events and find myself on the younger side (and I'm 52) Yet at the same time I see modelers in their teens who are doing great work and already have a lot of knowledge and skills. So what's going on?
One thing for sure, we'll never see another Golden Age like that sweet spot in history in the 40s and 50s. Millions of American men went from standing in breadlines and getting shot at in foxholes to radical new concepts like "leisure time" and "hobbies". Railroads were still a central part of popular culture. There was a hobby shop in every neighborhood. O, S and later HO trainsets became affordable toys for even the working class, and it was easy to make the transition from toy trains to scale model railroading. Then along came television, an endless variety of leisure activities, the personal computer, and the fading of trains from the popular mind.
Yet there's still a lot of us and in some ways we never had it so good. I see a lot of complaints about prices but then I think about when I was a teenager. A top quality locomotive meant Japanese brass, unpainted and often a poor runner. Today, for the same price, not even counting for inflation, a kid can get a highly detailed, painted RTR locomotive with DCC, that runs better than anything made back then.
One can blow a lot of money on trains, or if you don't have that money to blow, you can get a lot of satisfaction for very little money. Case in point: the brass trolley I longed for and finally got is still sitting in a box unpainted, but in the meantime I've gotten dozens of hours of fun out of kitbashing and painting a couple of $25 Bachmann trolleys.
Unless he's Richie Rich, a kid is going to figure out pretty quick that a fleet of passenger cars will mean saving, scrounging train shows and ebay, learning the skills to build them or being satisfied with cheaper mass market stuff. If someone is truly obsessed with, say, a regional commuter line, they'll get to where they want to go, but it won't be easy, just like a kid obsessed with blues guitar won't sound like Robert Johnson in ten easy lessons.
In the meantime, I think we all have the urge to evangelize to the young but it's hard to know where to start. I have a 9 year old son and he's not interested in trains, though he's been exposed to them all his life. He ride the subway and Metro North, had Thomas wooden trains like all the other kids, got a G gauge starter set for the Christmas tree at 5, he's very creative and loves to build stuff, but he's just not that into it. Seems like trains are just Daddy's thing so I'm not going to force it.
Some of his friends though, go bug eyed over my little N scale layout (aaaaagghhh, look but don't touch!!) With them, I give them old magazines or maybe some simple kit or other thing I'm not going to use. Maybe none of them will become model railroaders but at least I tried.
In my old fogey mode, I'll cuss kids today for their obsession with passive entertainment and lack of creativity, but I'm aware of certain countercurrents in youth culture today. There's a big interest, at least among certain cool kids, in DIY culture, making stuff, things that are obscure/archaic/"authentic", in not buying into prefab disposable junk. Some kids right now, including a lot of girls/young women, think a good time means building a robot or musical instrument out of broken toys and obsolete video game chips, welding together a compost tumbler in a community garden, dressing every day like it's 1908, or learning to play clawhammer banjo.
My point isn't that potential young model railroaders are some kind of counterculture types, but that there's interest in trains and making things out there among the youth of today. I just wonder how we can help those who are interested. The whole interweb thang is great, I think, but it's sad to see hobby shops and model railroad clubs closing.
I try and be a good ambassador for the hobby and be sensitive to someone's level of interest. Do they just "like trains" or are they totally obsessed with a particular facet of modeling? I try and be realistic and not bombard people with too much info at once. Give them magazines, send them to the Red Caboose or Trainworld, and hope their interest grows...

eh, its still a difficult sell.

I too am surprised that for all the claims of wanting to be "creative" that modeling in general (trains, planes, ships, cars, whatever) does not have a larger following.

I was not a train fanatic when i started building my model railroad. To me, it was easier than building model airplanes, or any other model vehicle for that matter. It also involved building so much more, an entire world rather than just an airplane, or just a battleship. It also helped me deal with stressful times.

It was only through starting to build a model railroad that I began to learn and become interested in the topic, so people don't necessarily need to be interested in trains anymore than the average level to become interested in the hobby.

I sometimes wonder if it really is video games and computers that pull kids away. Sometimes, i suspect its the fact that kids lead more hectic lives with far more moving around (constant school work, after school activities, etc.) that keep some of the younger crowd so occupied that they never get the chance to develop the interest. They've already got a full schedule, they don't need anything else to occupy their time.

being popular is not necessarily inhibiting the hobby, people of all ages take up different hobbies and crafts of varying popularity. I think these days, its just exposure and time that have everything to do with anyone picking up a "real" hobby of any type. Video games and computers just get a whole lot more exposure than model trains.

Otherwise, I don't think there is a flaw in the way model railroad companies sell their trains. As has been established, they pretty much are selling the most popular types amongst the entire population (young and old).

It was mentioned further back about teens having interest to some interest in the hobby. I am now 18 years old and in January going on 19. I have been doing the hobby since I was 2 years old. I started off with O-gauge as a gift for Hanukah from my grand parents. Within the last year I sold my O-gauge layout and bought HO scale. I am very interested in the hobby I do. I made a great decision switching scales as O-gauge did not offer what HO does. If they did offer it, it cost to much money and could not afford it. I run alot of Amtrak stuff on my layout and that's something I couldn't do on my old O-gauge layout. Next week I am placing an order for the new Athearn Gennys coming out as well as some other stuff coming out in 2012 from walthers. I think personally it does'nt matter what car goes on what train. An amfleet car is an amfleet car. Do they have different appearences? Absoultley. My Amtrak train I am currently assembling will be using 6 bachmann amfleet cars (Northeast regional style) an MHC car, a 1700 baggage car and one genny. I am assembling the Palmetto set as I have relatives in South Carolina. To me it doesn't matter as long as your using approprite cars and your not putting cars on the train that don't even go to that destination. It's not like your putting a superliner behind an HHP-8. I go as close as possible if cars on the real train are not avaliable.

Peanut1,

It was encouraging to read about your involvement. The Palmetto sounds like an excellent project.
I was your age when I got involved in this hobby. When I was in high school, I worked at a local hobby shop. One day, one of my mother's friends stopped in to buy a train set for her kid. I tried to steer her into buying quality stuff that would hold up without giving him trouble. As a result, she bought an HO train set "a' la carte".
I sold her an Athern F7, several Athern RTR freight cars, Atlas track, and an MRC power pack.

By the time I started college, her son had lost interest in model trains. I offered her a fair price for the lot, and took it back to school with me. This started a pattern of buying good used equipment. I found a Lionel collector who traded me some good HO engines for my inoperative Lionel train. Later, when I switched to N-scale, I was able to trade my HO scale stuff for an equivalent amount of used N. By adding new equipment as I could afford it, I was able to build up a nice collection over the past 32 years.

There still seems to be a lot of young people with disposable income, but the issue appears to be spending priorities. Auto ownership among young people in the West and Midwest appears to be universal. Most of these vehicles are well beyond what would be needed as basic transportation. Then there is the specialty equipment: big stereos, fancy wheels, etc. Add to this the enormous popularity of computers and video games, and there is still a lot of money being spent by this group.

There are two people who really inspired me through coverage in the national model railroad magazines. The first was "The Wizard of Monterey", John Allen. The January 1969 issue of "Model Railroader" featured a photo story on a local train run over his railroad. It absolutely blew me away! The second was a couple of articles by Canadian David Winter in "Railroad Model Craftsman" in the 1970's. His "Winter Park Regional Railroad", an N-scale railroad, provided me with a track plan for an N-scale railroad that served me well for 28 years! Another of his articles, "Ersatz Diesel Detailing", detailing N-scale Diesels with ordinary household junk, was very useful. I tried to phone him to thank him for the ideas, but was unable to get his number. If he is a member of this forum, thanks, Dave!

To get back on the point of this thread, I think the manufacturers could recapture the young modelers' market if they would concentrate on commonality rater than distinctive prototypes. This means producing powered chassis that would fit under a variety of body shells, so production costs could be spread over several diffenet models. Then the pre-painted shells could be offered as separate items. Research the passenger cars and do something similar. The prototype car builders don't re-invent the wheel for each car they build. The Amfleet cars are a good example of this.

Produce more offerings that can be used as the beginning of something bigger. At my LHS yesterday, I saw an HO Bachmann "Empire Builder" set. This was a GN-painted A-B F unit pair with a coach and "Great Dome" lounge. Now, I've seen the Empire Builder in its GN days a lot of times, but never a two-car one. But, this would give a budding passenger train modeler a start. Cars could be added individually to result in a reasonably complete model of the train. I think that is a great idea, an alternative to having to buy the whole thing at once, and something that would work in any scale to make passenger train modeling more affordable.

Kato did something similar in N at a much higher price. A true interline train, the California Zephyr. Just the cars, now. Add power to suit: CB&Q, BN, D&RGW, WP.
They offered the power separately later.

Les