Our Hobby and Where It Is Going

[Desertdweller]

Scotty,

I am glad to hear you are living in a community that supports model railroading. In many parts of the country, model railroad clubs are in the decline. Where I live, my local N-scale model railroad club was 120 miles away, before it lost its lease on its clubhouse. I still paid my dues and belonged to it as long as it held together, making trips to the monthly meetings and running my trains on the club railroad.

I strongly suspect the decline in model railroad clubs is closely related to the demise of the local hobby shop. The LHS provides a place where modelers can identify each other and form bonds and clubs. As these shops close, the opportunity for model railroaders to discover each other is lost.

Let's face it. Model railroading is basically a solo activity. While it can be an enjoyable group activity, it does not have to be to enjoy it. But then, that makes it all the more difficult for beginners to learn from the experienced model railroaders.

When I got started, I was able to join an O-scale club that had been around since the 1930's. I built an inexpensive car kit so I would have something of my own to run. I learned a great deal from those guys.

This group disbanded when their railroad was destroyed in a fire. I then joined an HO club that became an N-Trak when they lost their layout space. I left them in 1986 when I relocated for a job move. Every club I belonged to gave me education and friends. I was also able to help new modelers because of these clubs.

When the club I belonged to 120 miles west of here closed, so did the local hobby shop there. There was no relationship between the two, except that the shop was frequented by club members because it was handy and the owner was friendly to the club. Another pretty good hobby shop exists 120 miles south of me, and another 50 miles east of me. That is my LHS, but I don't know how long it will last.

I will take issue with you as to availability of reasonably priced equipment. We have one local model railroad show a year, with few vendors of either new or used stuff. I rather suspect a lot of the used items are worn out. I don't think we can support this hobby on garage-sale trains. Our beginning model railroaders deserve new equipment at reasonable prices.

When us Baby Boomers were getting started in the 1960's, we had a number of manufacturers supporting our HO hobby. The lowest-priced products were AHM, Life-Like, Tyco, and Bachmann. Mid-range products were produced by Athearn, Atlas, MDC,and Con-Cor. High-end stuff was brass, beginning with Tenshodo and progressing up through Pacific Fast Mail and Key and Gem. My "top shelf" stuff was Athearn and Con-Cor, and I aspired to Tenshodo.

What do we have now? Bachmann and Life-Like have become respectable mid-range manufacturers. AHM and Tyco are dead. Athearn, Atlas, and Con-Cor, with Kato, are the new Tenshodo. High-end brass has priced itself out of the market.

I think a company like Atlas could do a great service to this hobby, and therefore to itself also, if it would aggressively market its DC control system as an affordable alternative to DCC. They already make the basic control components needed. MRC still makes great DC powerpacks, and they now make a DC pack that can activate on-board sound. Couple this with a line of true DC locomotives (not DCC locos with a chip that can be disabled to run on DC) and a newcomer might still have a chance to build a model railroad that is something beyond "a trainset on a board". Remember, money saved on simple control systems can be spent on other model railroad equipment.

I think the DCC control systems have been oversold, anyway. Do you remember when they were first introduced? A big selling point was "you'll only need to connect two wires to your railroad!" Now we find that to make DCC reliable, it requires more feeder wires than DC. DCC requires constant power on the rails, a potential safety hazard. All existing DC locos would require receivers, many would require the frame to be milled to provide clearance for receivers.

Would you buy a used DCC loco from a vendor at a model show, or from a garage sale? I would buy, and have bought, DC locos that way. You can tear them down and troubleshoot them if they don't run. The worst thing you can find is a bad motor. But a used DCC loco that won't run? I wouldn't know where to begin. How could you tell a bad decoder chip from a bad motor?

Les

[timberley]

I always find discussions like this one to be quite interesting, especially as a young person who discovered the hobby on my own (I'm just into my 20's now, and have been into MR in some way since I was about 10...not because of a parent or relative in the hobby, but simply due to my own interest). Although I do have opinions on all of the topics thus far discussed, I will weigh in simply to make one point.

There seems to be a lot of sentiment from some people in the hobby that we need to have more cheap, basic options available. This sentiment has permeated this thread so far. If this is truly the desire of most modelers, then why is it that every time a company brings along a new model that is missing a few key details, they rceive hugely negative feedback on various forums? Shouldn't this be seen as an opportunity for the modeler to do a little more "real modeling"?

For example: Athearn surely saved money on their RTR Dash 9's by using the basic C&NW style cab and low-mounted ditchlights. Sure, these details are blatantly wrong for several of the roads using Dash 9s, since most have top-mounted ditchlights and the 4-window (side) cab is also very common. This is not even to mention the much more unique CN versions, or even the simple high-headlight configuration of the Norfolk Southern. On top of this, despite some other details (grab irons mainly) being included in the RTR unit, these locomotives lack MU hoses, windshield wipers, etc.

Do people laud Athearn for continuing this line in that state, with grossly misrepresented features and lacking details? Surely, it is cheaper!

I'm not saying that this is universally the case, but I just wanted to point out one thing: when manufacturers bring out a new super-detailed RTR locomotive, especially ones with more prototype-specific features, they get huge praise from modelers. When they botch certain details or leave them off, they get criticized.

To be honest, I think the trend to high-end RTR is more than anything a response to people's demand for it. How often is a manufacturer harangued for not doing a particular variation of a model, or painting a foobie in another road's paint scheme, or leaving off major details? That may be the result of new pressure from high-end competitors, but I think it is caused, more than anything, by the modelers telling them what they do want.

If that many people really do want low-end spartan kits, then I should think the manufacturers would oblige (surely, it is cheaper for them too!). Evidently, that's not the demand they're getting.


I will only make one last comment, and this is more of an observation. I'm been really quite surprised to watch certain people's reactions to very prototype-specific products. Recently, a number of manufacturers have brought out models of locomotives and rolling stock most people thought would never be produced. Take some of the Canadian units for example (accurate CN ES44s and a reasonable SD40-2W from Intermountain, GP40-2W from Atlas, GP38-2W from Athearn and various MLWs from Bowser, not to mention the slew of Rapido and TLT offerings). Most of us had simply accepted that we would have to build our own if we ever wanted these models. Although the reaction over these was mostly positive, I was always surprised to hear people complain about the price. "They want almost $200 for that locomotive, even without DCC and sound??? That's an outrage! I'm not paying that! What do they think we....etc...etc...etc." For years, many of these same people said things like "why can't we get any Canadian specific models?", or "why won't someone produce this..." etc. Then when it is produced, they complain that it is priced too high.

I feel that many people seem to want it both ways. They want unique products, with accurate details...but they also want them cheap, they don't want to pre-order, and they want a stock of them on the shelf at the LHS all the time. Unfortunately, these concepts simply don't work together. That's a basic reality.


So what was the point of all that? Simply to say two things: 1) I am convinced that the current trend is driven by consumer demand as much as anything. This has been demonstrated by many of the people I've talked to, and the postings on various forums. If most people really still wanted stripped-down kits, I believe that is what we'd have. 2) The things we don't like, i.e. inflated price, pre-orders, limited runs, etc., have become necessary due to the consumer demand for more new products, more unique products, and higher quality products, coupled with current economic realities. Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways. Unless someone can make a good business case for manufacturers bringing back a low-quality basic line in addition to their RTR offerings (evidently there was a good case against it, hence Athearn's recent abandonment of the blue-box kits), demonstrating that it is in fact what enough consumers WANT, then nothing's going to change.

[mlrr]

I always find discussions like this one to be quite interesting, especially as a young person who discovered the hobby on my own (I'm just into my 20's now, and have been into MR in some way since I was about 10...not because of a parent or relative in the hobby, but simply due to my own interest). Although I do have opinions on all of the topics thus far discussed, I will weigh in simply to make one point.

There seems to be a lot of sentiment from some people in the hobby that we need to have more cheap, basic options available. This sentiment has permeated this thread so far. If this is truly the desire of most modelers, then why is it that every time a company brings along a new model that is missing a few key details, they rceive hugely negative feedback on various forums? Shouldn't this be seen as an opportunity for the modeler to do a little more "real modeling"?

For example: Athearn surely saved money on their RTR Dash 9's by using the basic C&NW style cab and low-mounted ditchlights. Sure, these details are blatantly wrong for several of the roads using Dash 9s, since most have top-mounted ditchlights and the 4-window (side) cab is also very common. This is not even to mention the much more unique CN versions, or even the simple high-headlight configuration of the Norfolk Southern. On top of this, despite some other details (grab irons mainly) being included in the RTR unit, these locomotives lack MU hoses, windshield wipers, etc.

Do people laud Athearn for continuing this line in that state, with grossly misrepresented features and lacking details? Surely, it is cheaper!

I'm not saying that this is universally the case, but I just wanted to point out one thing: when manufacturers bring out a new super-detailed RTR locomotive, especially ones with more prototype-specific features, they get huge praise from modelers. When they botch certain details or leave them off, they get criticized.

To be honest, I think the trend to high-end RTR is more than anything a response to people's demand for it. How often is a manufacturer harangued for not doing a particular variation of a model, or painting a foobie in another road's paint scheme, or leaving off major details? That may be the result of new pressure from high-end competitors, but I think it is caused, more than anything, by the modelers telling them what they do want.

If that many people really do want low-end spartan kits, then I should think the manufacturers would oblige (surely, it is cheaper for them too!). Evidently, that's not the demand they're getting.


I will only make one last comment, and this is more of an observation. I'm been really quite surprised to watch certain people's reactions to very prototype-specific products. Recently, a number of manufacturers have brought out models of locomotives and rolling stock most people thought would never be produced. Take some of the Canadian units for example (accurate CN ES44s and a reasonable SD40-2W from Intermountain, GP40-2W from Atlas, GP38-2W from Athearn and various MLWs from Bowser, not to mention the slew of Rapido and TLT offerings). Most of us had simply accepted that we would have to build our own if we ever wanted these models. Although the reaction over these was mostly positive, I was always surprised to hear people complain about the price. "They want almost $200 for that locomotive, even without DCC and sound??? That's an outrage! I'm not paying that! What do they think we....etc...etc...etc." For years, many of these same people said things like "why can't we get any Canadian specific models?", or "why won't someone produce this..." etc. Then when it is produced, they complain that it is priced too high.

I feel that many people seem to want it both ways. They want unique products, with accurate details...but they also want them cheap, they don't want to pre-order, and they want a stock of them on the shelf at the LHS all the time. Unfortunately, these concepts simply don't work together. That's a basic reality.


So what was the point of all that? Simply to say two things: 1) I am convinced that the current trend is driven by consumer demand as much as anything. This has been demonstrated by many of the people I've talked to, and the postings on various forums. If most people really still wanted stripped-down kits, I believe that is what we'd have. 2) The things we don't like, i.e. inflated price, pre-orders, limited runs, etc., have become necessary due to the consumer demand for more new products, more unique products, and higher quality products, coupled with current economic realities. Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways. Unless someone can make a good business case for manufacturers bringing back a low-quality basic line in addition to their RTR offerings (evidently there was a good case against it, hence Athearn's recent abandonment of the blue-box kits), demonstrating that it is in fact what enough consumers WANT, then nothing's going to change.

WOW! HOW DARE YOU!

J/K

Very well stated my friend . I couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, like you, I had no parents or grandparents who were in the hobby and passed the "obsession" down to me. I can point to my grandmother as a major influence in that she took me along with her cross-country on the train twice (once when I was 10 and again when I was 14). That experience permanently established an interest in model railroading. She also got me my first engine and passenger car (at my request). Beyond that, I wasn't as fortunate as others who were born into a model railroading "dynasty". I'm the pioneer. I'm probably on the opposite end of you regarding the 20yr old crowd but still fall within that demographic .

[CNJ999]

I think ones perception of the hobby is heavily shaded by the people in the hobby you know..
I found this statement very interesting:

Scale model railroading has always been a Baby Boomer fascination; one subsequent generations have demonstrated only a very modest interest in. It thrived among the Baby Boomers because of affordability and availability. Eliminate both of those aspects from one's product line and you are increasingly cutting off the bulk of your customer base. There will be no influx of vast numbers of wealthy Generation X's that will perpetuate model railroading long into the future.

CNJ999

Here in Rochester NY our biggest annual train show is put on by the college students of the RITMRC:

http://ritmrc.org/

I have been going to the show every year for almost 10 years,
(I am in a G-gauge club that always has a display at the show)
My view of the hobby, living in Rochester NY:

50% of model railroaders are under 30..
Modeler railroaders in the 18 to 25 year old range far outnumber those above 60.
Gen-X'ers (I am one) are just coming back to the hobby, as we reach 40 years old and finally have some disposable income.
(many people are into model railroading as teenagers..drop out of the hobby in their 20's and 30's as other priorities take over (jobs, dating, marriage, mortgage, kids), and come back to the hobby in the 40's and older)

Im not seeing the doom-and-gloom..I never have seen it..
I have been involved in the hobby since the 80's, and it seems more healthy now than ever..
new products come out all the time..they wouldn't be coming out if the market wasn't there.

I'm still not seeing the problem..

Scot

Scot, thank your lucky stars for where you live, because I think that most folks here would agree that it is almost unique in today's hobby. Further, responding to your opinion that posters remarks here may be heavily flavored by seeing only the aspects of hobbyists that immediately surround them, let me offer the following evaluations of the typical hobbyists' age quite independent of any opinion I might hold personally.

Model Railroader magazine, the hobby's flagship publication, published the findings of regular readership surveys over the course of 50+ years. These end in 1993, arguably because of the implication of how dramatically the hobby was "greying". Around 1950 the average reported age of the readership was 30 years. They also reported that 20% were teens, but only 5% were over 50! The average age rose only by 1 year each decade over the next 30 years, but then it began rising very steadily. By the mid 80's it was 40 and in 1993 (after which surveys were no longer published) it had reached 47. Extrapolating the trend to the present day suggest the average might be near 60. The NMRA has done similar examinations of its membership from time to time. The NMRA was largely made up of men in their 30's some forty years ago. The NMRA published their most recent official results in the mid-late 1990's, which pointed to an average member age of 55 or better and I have been advised since by an NMRA official that it has surpassed 65 today.

A bit more subjective, but nevertheless an independent evaluation, was initiated by me at the time of the NMRA's Hartford convention a couple of years ago. I ask on a major forum if those attending the NMRA's National Train Show on that Saturday, when it was open to the general public, if they would convey their impression of what they observed in the way of the age of attendees they saw. Almost without exception the response was around 60. Attending myself, I got the impression that I was at a senior citizens function!

This progressive aging situation is to be fully anticipated because of the very nature of interest in the hobby. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the fascination with miniature trains is very much a Baby Boomer thing. It derives from the great impact toy trains had on that generation and its tie-in with happy memories of Christmas. At least 50% of the male children I knew in the 50's had either a Lionel or Flyer train set/layout under or near the Christmas tree. Trains were as much a part of enjoying Christmas as was Santa. The impact across all levels of society cannot be minimized; it burned a love of model/miniature trains into the psyche of an entire generation. No such youthful stimulus was present after about 1965 to influence potential future hobbyists. If anything, slot cars forced trains out of childhood. Threafter only a tiny fraction of the population ever has developed an interest in the hobby. In fact, today's best hobbyists are still mainly from amongst the Boomers and model railroading, once the second most popular hobby in America, now does not appear on any list of the top 100 hobbies.

History is what it is and given the circumstances involved, once the Boomers are shut out of the hobby, either by rising prices or increasing age, the hobby will likely shrink to the proportions similar to those back before WWII.

CNJ999

[mlrr]

This might provide some insight into where the hobby is going. I received an email from a professional colleague of mine (has way more experience than I do as he's been in the profession for some time).

Kyle,
First, are you into model trains? I ran across a link to a Kyle Nebhard that finished a MARC train kit. http://islandmodelworks.com/models/Kyle ... 201024.jpg I was looking because I want to do the same.

How's that for "doom and gloom"! Rather encouraging don't you think?

[CNJ999]

"There seems to be a lot of sentiment from some people in the hobby that we need to have more cheap, basic options available. This sentiment has permeated this thread so far. If this is truly the desire of most modelers, then why is it that every time a company brings along a new model that is missing a few key details, they rceive hugely negative feedback on various forums? Shouldn't this be seen as an opportunity for the modeler to do a little more "real modeling"?

For example: Athearn surely saved money on their RTR Dash 9's by using the basic C&NW style cab and low-mounted ditchlights. Sure, these details are blatantly wrong for several of the roads using Dash 9s, since most have top-mounted ditchlights and the 4-window (side) cab is also very common. This is not even to mention the much more unique CN versions, or even the simple high-headlight configuration of the Norfolk Southern. On top of this, despite some other details (grab irons mainly) being included in the RTR unit, these locomotives lack MU hoses, windshield wipers, etc.

Do people laud Athearn for continuing this line in that state, with grossly misrepresented features and lacking details? Surely, it is cheaper!

I'm not saying that this is universally the case, but I just wanted to point out one thing: when manufacturers bring out a new super-detailed RTR locomotive, especially ones with more prototype-specific features, they get huge praise from modelers. When they botch certain details or leave them off, they get criticized.

To be honest, I think the trend to high-end RTR is more than anything a response to people's demand for it. How often is a manufacturer harangued for not doing a particular variation of a model, or painting a foobie in another road's paint scheme, or leaving off major details? That may be the result of new pressure from high-end competitors, but I think it is caused, more than anything, by the modelers telling them what they do want.

If that many people really do want low-end spartan kits, then I should think the manufacturers would oblige (surely, it is cheaper for them too!). Evidently, that's not the demand they're getting.

Tim"

As long as I'm here already, I thought it might be of interest to others to address the seemingly valid questions Tim raises.

He says if cheaper, less detailed, models were in demand why wouldn't the manufacturers produce them? The reason is that, historically, hobbyists never ran out to buy the latest model, they bought what they wanted at their leisure when they wanted and often on impulse. This sort of buying habit necessitates making and stocking a large amount of product and anticipating a protracted sales period before recovering the investment. Such an approach is no longer favored. Now it is a matter of producing a very limited run of a high priced item, sell it out as quickly as possible (often by pre-order), recoup the investment and move to the next item, ultimately with a smaller run at a higher price. Unfortunately, as can be seen from endless postings on all forums, the majority of hobbyists most certainly do not favor this approach. In fact, the only faction among hobbyists it does favor are those with plenty of ready cash.

As a second and deciding factor, one needs only to look at who are running the leading locomotive producers in the hobby currently. About half of them are former brass locomotive importers. These gentlemen are used to working with the quick return, high-end, model trade, not the traditional "buy as you go" that dominated our hobby for half a century.

Another of Tim's point was that we are demanding detail, but crying over the price when we get it. However, just what percentage of hobbyist are really "demanding" these superdetailed models and where/when did it all start? Unless you were around from the beginnings of model railroad forums on the Internet you probably don't know the answers.

The cry for much greater detail arose very early in the history of the Atlas forum, among a handful of know-it-all loudmouths who, in fact, turned out to be mainly dabbler/collector types and not actually folks with quality layouts of any sort, or even modeling talent. They would moan and cry about the shortcomings of the latest mid range locos and cars largely to bolster their standings as ultimate railroading authorities. In time repeating such posts and that very minor errors in a new model existed and spread across all the forums, started to damage sales. The hobby's dabblers who would never, ever, have known of a given flaw in a model on their own now refused to accept the model as is. After a time it became almost a game on the Internet forums to find the least error that had been made in the latest model, usually pointed out by some armchair hobbyist. The manufacturers do read some forums and they caught on. But to get those better models that had all the correct details, prices had to rise and rise a great deal. Likewise, production shrank and turnaround on the investment had to become very quick.

At the same time if one looked at videos of the great layouts of the hobby's best modelers of the period, you did not see an endless parade of superdetailed, handcrafted, perfect cars and locomotives. Some locomotives had been upgraded by their owners, along with perhaps a handful of cars, but these layouts were not examples of the latest and greatest product lines, nor are they today! Repainted shake-the-box cars dominated and precise prototype was rarely followed. Good enough was fine for the hobby's best.

The fact of the matter is that while the Internet may have been a great boon to many of us, at the same time it has become our own worst enemy, generating a pointless pursuit of RTR perfection at any price.

CNJ999

[Desertdweller]

CNJ999,

You bring up a very good point, one I've long suspected. The buyers of the current high-priced locos (and the people who convinced the manufacturers to produce them) represent the market segment that formerly bought and collected the brass locos. This works for the producers, too, because they can make their money selling fewer units at a higher profit per unit. Short production runs and pre-orders pressure buyers to purchase when (or even before) the product hits the market.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of these super-models actually wind up working on model railroads.

Back in the days of LHS's, one could buy a good-quality basic model loco (Athearn Blue-Box F-7, for example) at a reasonable price. These units came in a variety of good-quality paint jobs. If you wanted to add detail not included in the kit, or wished to detail it to be accurate for a particular railroad, that LHS probably sold detail parts that would allow you to complete the job. You might even find someone working there who could tell you what you would need. Then you would take it home and complete it.

Apparently, this is now too much work. It used to be an enjoyable part of the hobby.

I think there is a market for model railroad products that demand some creative input from the modeler, whether that be DC control systems or locos that need to be researched and detailed. There are still real modelers out there who are not traumatized by having to put something of themselves into their models.

Les

[Bigt]

Les,

You are and I are on the same page in our thoughts on this subject. Once again, I am not knocking those
modellers who want the highly detailed, dcc, sound equipped locos, and, the similar items in the car market. I see
those folks as todays "brass people" that I started with and grew up with in the early 70's. However, those people
back then had the offerings that they wanted (pretty much), but, the rest of us could also readily find, and, afford,
those items we wanted. I think everyone was happy, I know I was.
There was once a pretty successful modeller that I knew who had a simple philosophy on model railroading.
He participated in the hobby to the level that he was happy with...period. His locos and cars were representative
of the prototype that he was modelling, detailed to the level that he was comfortable with. But, he was able to
start with a basic kit and take it to the level he wanted, even if it only meant a new paint job. I remember his
Milwaukee Road boxcars had ribbed sides and were painted and lettered for the Milwaukee, all applied by him, but,
they sure did not match any class of boxcar they owned. There was no mistaking what he was trying to, and did,
convey to his visitors....it was the Milwaukee Road....his version. My point is, I don't think we have those options
now as much as we did then. If I am modelling a certain railroad and one of todays manufacturers produces a new
loco, well, I have to take it with all the options. Personally, I would like a "stripped down" version available as well.
I don't care if every detail is on the loco, or that the details are exact, or even correct. I don't care if there are the
myriad detail parts....I don't really care for all of them....I don't need them to be satisfied. I simply want the option
to buy what I want, not what they say I will take.
In closing, let me say that the spirit shown in this forum has given me a little sense of hope. I have read the
thoughts of others who I gather are of my generation and thinking. I know now that I am not the only one with these
thoughts of our beloved hobby. I have read the thoughts of those newcomers, those who will someday hopefully look
back on this period as their "good old days" in the hobby. I respect them for what they think and believe. Thankfully,
we all have the opportunity to voice our concerns and thoughts on this great hobby. Now, if we could only hope
the various manufacturers would read these thoughts.......

[Desertdweller]

Bigt,

The whole trend away from actual modeling is what disturbs me, and what will make our hobby unable to survive a severe economic downturn. I like well-detailed, R-T-R models if they happen to be what I need anyway and are available at a reasonable price and in a format (DC) I can use.

For example, I am very pleased with my Kato California Zephyr train, and the three Kato F-3's that pull it. But before I bought that train, I had kitbashed the unique dome cars for the Denver Zephyr, and was working on a kitbashed California Zephyr. I also kitbashed an SP dome lounge (using parts from a Con-Cor diner and a Bachmann full-length dome). When I wanted a Milwaukee Road Superdome, I took a Bachmann Budd full-length dome and painted and decaled it for the Milwaukee Road.
True, it is not right for a Milwaukee Road Pullman-Standard Superdome, but I am satisfied with it, and that is the idea of my model railroad anyway.

I've also been known to rework the Model Power "shorty" passenger cars, adding scratchbuilt interiors, M/T trucks, and custom paint and decals.

I like the Con-Cor and Rapido passenger cars because I can buy them painted for the trains I want to model. One of my trains is a set of Lima passenger cars painted by Bev-Bel for the Rio Grande.

My railroad equipment is the result of 34 years of collecting N-scale equipment for a specific goal. I've never pre-ordered a "limited run" item, although I did order once a Japanese-produced loco that went on back order for almost a year. I've never ordered any model under the pressure of a "limited run". If something becomes available that I want and I have the money for it, fine. Otherwise, I'll pass. Have I missed some choice models that would have fit well into my railroad ? Sure. But it is more important to make sane purchase choices.

Sometimes, the things you wanted but couldn't get come back around again. You might find them at a train show, or in a sale flyer. I order cars and locos several times a year from the Walthers sale flyer. But only if I really "need" it and the price is right. Sometimes, items come back around later at half the original price.

Les

[Desertdweller]

I think the concept of building the model railroad to suit the builder runs directly counter to the "buy it and show it" philosophy behind the ready-made, high-priced models. This was not always counter to the railroads featured by the model press.

One of the popular HO railroads featured in "Railroad Model Craftsman" in the 1960's was Allen McCelland's "Virginian and Ohio". This was a large home railroad that used the old GE "Astrac" control system. I think it was a precursor to the DCC systems.

This was a marvelous railroad in its original incarnation. While a free-lanced railroad, it followed real railroad operating procedures. It operated with a dispatcher issuing train orders. Period-correct locos and trains operating on a realistically scenicked railroad.

Allen followed a principle that I have tried to adhere to. It is the principle of "Good Enough". He knew his models would be viewed as part of an operating railroad, not subject to individual scrutiny. Thus, rather than super-detail everything to contest level, he went for overall effect.

My own N-scale railroad employs this principle. Nit-pickers and rivet-counters would tear it apart, but only once. If they don't like my railroad, they are welcome to build their own. I built the railroad to do the things I wanted it to do in the space I have available.

I knew a guy who was a real rivet counter. He jumped on my kitbashed Superdome with four feet, being quick to tell me all the inaccuracies in it. I KNEW the inaccuracies. After all, I had worked for the Milwaukee and had ridden these cars. He hadn't. He didn't have a model railroad, either. Just liked to collect pieces and criticize others.

I model what I have known in my own life. I model a specific location I have taken trains to and from many times. What trains left the scene before I got there, I have researched by buying books and studying on the Internet. My railroad is not a museum display. I am very aware of every inaccuracy in what I have. But it is the way I want it to be.

Like all of us who actually build and operate model railroads (as opposed to just collecting stuff), I had a limited amount of money with which to build and stock the railroad. I had this idea of what I wanted to wind up with since 1978, so I had a big advantage in having most of my locos and cars purchased before starting construction on my ultimate railroad. I also had a limited amount of funds to spend in construction, and model railroading is not my only hobby.

This is my last model railroad. I have designed it so it could be de-wired, cut apart, and moved on the series of self-supporting tables it is built on, but, realistically, I don't expect that to happen during my lifetime. I own the house it is located in, and I am retired. My concern is that the hobby is developing in such a way that anyone wishing to build a railroad like mine may soon find it impossible. Every dollar that has to be spent on an overly-elaborate locomotive is one less that can be spent on the model railroad itself, on rolling stock, on control systems. Consider: If you have a thousand dollars to spend on control systems and locomotives, you can either have a $200 DC control system and eight DC locomotives; or a $600 DCC control system and two DCC locomotives. Which would you rather have? And how long will you even have that choice?

Les

[BobLI]

I've been in the hobby for over 40 years and I find it frustrating that DCC is being "pushed" as the way to go. I dont need to know programming just to make a locomotive operate at a prototype speed. DC is just fine for me with my cab control blocks. All the bells and whistles on DCC are great but the price of a decoder is what we used to pay for a quality locomotive! I'm sure there are a few others out there who share my thoughts. And i agree with the idea of "good enough". I think one of the Model Railroader staff members rolling stock was "good enough". He'd rather go for operation and not detail.

[CNJ999]

I've been in the hobby for over 40 years and I find it frustrating that DCC is being "pushed" as the way to go. I dont need to know programming just to make a locomotive operate at a prototype speed. DC is just fine for me with my cab control blocks. All the bells and whistles on DCC are great but the price of a decoder is what we used to pay for a quality locomotive! I'm sure there are a few others out there who share my thoughts. And i agree with the idea of "good enough". I think one of the Model Railroader staff members rolling stock was "good enough". He'd rather go for operation and not detail.

You can largely thank our "friends" at Model Railroader magazine for creating the image that today's hobby centers around DCC. The fact of the matter is that over the years certain editor's of MR have developed specific agendas that they would push endlessly and DCC is only the latest example. If you've been a reader of MR long enough you'll recall the push for serious operations starting way back around 1950, a time when most hobbyists were lucky to have a double looped layout that actually could run trains smoothly and continuously without derailments. It was a totally impractical idea to champion at that time in the hobby's history, but that didn't deter MR from continually harping on it. The idea took more than 40 years to really stick, waiting until layout building caught up. As I recall, they also tried to link operations with a push for hobbyists to switch to Astrac (sp?), an early form of a DCC-like control system. Price, incompatibility, and reader response regarding it forced MR to drop that agenda after a time, but just look at the inordinate coverage it got at the time when it was an extreme niche subject.

MR's more recent push for DCC has at times bordered on the ridiculous, as when in the early 2000's they went for well over an entire year featuring ONLY DCC controlled layouts in their layout tour articles, while hawking largely just DCC equipment in the trade review pages. They only began to relent after heavy feedback from a segment of the readership apparently impressed on the editor that DC was still the choice of the majority of established hobbyists. Today the magazine remains definitely DCC and mostly dabbler oriented (remember when it was exclusively about actual modeling?), but then that's little surprise given that the last two editors have been DCS tin-plate enthusiasts, not people from the scale side of the hobby.

I wonder if things might change for the better at MR if David Popp, or some outsider who is an actual model railroader, were to take the reins?

CNJ999

[mlrr]

I too am a fan of "Get me in the ballpark". I feel that if I have critiques about a model's accuracy, then something must be bad. That's how lenient I've been about accuracy. I can however appreciate the increased attention to detail and in cases where a completely new model is being produced (that I've personally never owned before) I won't have an issue with paying for that super detail. in other cases, if the model(s) I do have are close enough, then I won't "double dip". It's that simple.

On the subject of DC/DCC, the argument (with all do respect) is silly. DCC is being "pushed" but there's nothing saying that you have to switch. I understand that DCC is becoming more standardized with factory-installed chips in new locos, etc., but this hobby has to adapt to the improvements in technology to reach newer modelers. The added flexibility of DCC attracts newer modelers because to some, running trains has become more than something going around a track. It in a way "comes alive". I've witnessed this personally where someone who has absolutely NO trains is shown a DCC/Sound unit with literally all the bells and whistles (don't forget the fancy lighting arrays) and are SOLD on the hobby and begin looking to star their collection.

I recently had a discussion with one of my co-workers about my hobby and when I explained to them what MY trains do (DCC) they became more interested in it because there was more there to grab there attention. I'll also say that when I have guests, it's received much more positively than when I had DC. That's not the only measure but the more the hobby can offer the better. Plus the effort to "push" DCC is more about educating those who may be shy or hesitant (which is perfectly fine; we've all been there) to enter DCC. DC has virtually reached its limits but it hasn't been forgotten. Some manufacturers have made it so that despite having a DC layout, you can access all the functions of a sound decoder.

There are always going to be folks opposed to change. I would encourage those who already have their layouts wired for block operation to consider an incremental approach like I did. You could swap one of your cabs with a DCC system and gradually upgrade your locomotives. I started in 2002 and 90% of my active roster (which has been growing since) is converted.

[Desertdweller]

Kyle,

For every new potential model railroader who is greatly impressed with DCC models, how many others are aghast at the cost? I do not see this as attractive to new model railroaders. Maybe attractive until they learn what it costs.

I have been a regular reader (and off-and-on subscriber) to Model Railroader since 1968. My current subscription will be my last one. In the past few issues, there have been practically no articles that relate to my style of model railroading. N-scale related articles are scarce, and what they do print generally relate to DCC operations or modifications. I can't remember the last time they featured a model railroad that was DC controlled.

Also, my interests lie in the immediate post-transition era. Not a whole lot of that either. The modern era gets the attention. In HO, of course.

Another major reason I bought the magazine was to read the ads of the large model railroad distributors. N-scale has always played second fiddle to HO. That is to be expected. But for months, even the big distributors do not offer N-scale items in their ads. Sure, I can deal with them on the Internet, but that is not why I buy the magazine.

The old-school guys like Gordon Odegaard have died. Modelers who published articles on how to build innovative models from cheap supplies and junk are gone. E.L. Moore, who constructed the most outrageous, fantastic homemade structures on "TV trays" are dead. Heck, in the articles he wrote for "Railroad Model Craftsman", he even wrote entertaining little stories explaining the models. For awhile, AHM even produced plastic kits of some of Moore's structures. Imagine: a plastic model kit of a model without a prototype, made from junk. Full Circle!

So now, I guess if you are a "serious model railroader", you need to spend at least twenty large on a barn-sized layout that is in HO scale and needs a crew of six to operate. DCC only, of course. If you run out of things for your DCC system to operate, add DCC track switches.

It had better be serious, too. Try to get a few actual train crew members, or better yet, an FRA Operations Inspector to make sure everything is done right.
Keep both a General Code of Operating Rules book and a C.F.R. 240 book handy.

Free-lance railroad? Forget about it! Your'e gonna need a prototype. Even if the name of the railroad is freelanced, everything else needs a prototype. Why? Because if you just do things the way you like, how is anyone going to know if you are screwing something up? (Makes it too hard on the nit-pickers.)

Judging by these standards, it makes me wonder if many of the classic great model railroads of the past would even make the cut to get in print. Almost all the great classic model railroads were free-lanced. Many injected humor into their scenes. When was the last time you saw that?

The great model railroads that really inspired me were the Virginian and Ohio, the Winter Park Regional Railroad, and the Gorre and Daphetid. The last two even incorporated dinosaurs in their scenery.

Les

[jaystreetcrr]

I always enjoy threads on this topic, and feel compelled to pitch in, posing a lot of questions and taking a glass-half-full approach.
First of all, the golden age of model railroading left the station a long time ago. The post WWII to 1960s era was a perfect storm where millions of regular guys had the time and resources for hobbies, formerly something for eccentric gentlemen of leisure. Men still took shop class and knew how to use tools and make stuff. Trainsets which could transition into scale model railroading became affordable. It was ok for dad to vanish into the basement after a long day at the widget factory...no driving the kids to soccer practice. And Junior wasn't at soccer practice or locked into the Nintendo...he was down in the basement with dad learning how to use tools and make stuff.
The biggest factor though is that railroads were central to popular and practical culture and millions of men and boys were fascinated with them.
Now, trains are no longer center stage and we have television, computers and a million other hobbies and distractions. Yet there are still a lot of model railroaders around, even though we are an aging and shrinking cohort, and from the above posts and many others I've heard, we are being poorly served.
Considering inflation, how much difference is there between a Varney kit in the 50s, a brass loco in the 70s and today's made in China product with all the DCC and bells and whistles? Certainly in terms of quality we've never had it better. Is there really this high end RTR collector's market that's pricing out lower cost basic models? Maybe in O scale hi-rail, but not so much in the other scales.
I never understood the collecting thing with trains, though I've collected other stuff all my life. Trains were meant to be played with!! Ok, maybe with old tinplate, but contemporary stuff? It bugged me when I got into N scale a while back and discovered there were "runners" and "collectors" and that's why the boxcar I wanted went for $70.
Is this all a big conspiracy with manufacturers and magazines? Yeah, the companies want to make a profit and train mags are no different from fashion magazines--do you expect Vogue to say "you look just fine, and thrift shops have great clothes!!" Still, if someone's making fancy trains and can't sell them they're going down--look what the depression did to standard gauge tinplate.
The mysteries of the train market elude me. Was there a big outcry for On30 when Bachmann came out with a trainset 20 years ago? Now there's a whole niche of modelers from people doing finescale scratchbuilding to folks who want narrow gauge without springing for brass locos and craftsman kits and Bachmann is making some coin as well. Same thing with G scale and garden railways...where did that come from? Like On30, against the trend of smaller trains. Did the supply create the demand?
A common theme on these posts is that no one builds anything anymore. Funny thing, I picked up an old traction magazine from the 70s that said the same thing, blaming all the brass imports. I love to build and to me that's what the hobby is all about, ever since I was a kid. I can be a hardcore rivet counter with my own stuff and enjoy the research and planning involved in building a model. However, I would never lay that trip on anyone else to put them down or feel superior. If you're running your shiny RTR stuff at 200 scale mph and making funny choo-choo sounds with a big grin on your face, more power to you!! Even that collector staring at his stuff on the shelf is ok, though I might flash back to all the kids with mega-trains I resented as I begged my dad for a ride to the hobby shop and a $1.98 Athearn kit.
So, I might spend months scratchbuilding that N scale trolley car, counting rivets, but when I need some urban scenery to run it through, there's nothing I love more than cheap mass-market building kits. I don't care if it says "Ages 8 and up" on the box, if the windows aren't too clunky, some paint, weathering and a few details make one more rowhouse or factory with very little time or expense.
That's another thing I like to stress, that yes you can spend a ton of money on this hobby but you don't have to. I enjoy scrounging up materials and at my former job in a city park, our dumpster was my hobby shop, with free plywood, blue foam insulation and lumber for layouts and modules, all gauges of wire for wiring and scratchbuilding, and various bits and pieces. I don't like that you see less of this mentality in the magazines. I like RMC because they emphasize more building and small doable projects. Even if it's not a model I'm interested in I'll enjoy reading the article. Plus I like their bias towards northeastern stuff, which may turn others off. MR I'll maybe pick up if there's something I'm really interested in but it does seem to be all DCC and basement empires.
I used to read Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette but lost interest in narrow gauge. Now I'm interested in traction and streetcars but there's no print publication out there.
DCC...sounds great but for now I'm sticking with DC. I'm a Luddite at heart. Having said that, it's interesting that in all these posts about the future of the hobby, there's no mention of 3D modeling. It's way beyond me as I can barely turn on this computer and type but it sound like you sit down with a CAD type program, sketch out your model, shoot the data off to Shapewaysor a similar company and in a couple of weeks you get your model in the mail, and other people can order them if they want. A whole new paradigm! A melding of the scratchbuilder and basement manufacturer!! No more whining because Bachmann won't make the Podunk Central #9 you've always wanted!! It's a very new thing and has limitations but seems like a real revolution, even to a technophobe like me.
Another thing that isn't mentioned in all this...why are we ignoring 50% of the human race? Is the love of model trains some kind of Y chromosone mutation? Maybe this will change. There's a trend for women and girls to do more crafty DIY stuff and maybe some of them will pick up on trains, perhaps as a kind of retro cool thing. Or not. Anyway, we shouldn't ignore any potential modelers or fall into despair that we're a bunch of old dudes headed for oblivion.
Since getting into N scale traction, I've discovered the vast world of Japanese N scale. Before, I only knew about Kato track and U.S. prototypes, but there are lots of manufacturers and zillions of different Japanese prototype trains. Apparently, the kids over there not only have time to invent every pop culture trend on earth and kick our behinds in academics, they do a lot of model railroading. Maybe, like Britain, it's an eccentric island nation with a strange love of trains. Anyway, model railroading and modern youth can thrive together in the right setting.
More on this another time, just rambling now.