State of the hobby

[TrainFreak409]

Throwing in my two cents.

Earlier in this post, there has been mentions about how the modelers are getting older, and that not as many young people are getting into the hobby. I find this only to be partly true. Yes, the majority of train enthusiasts I know are older than I, usually 30 years of age at least. I only know a handful of teenaged model railroaders/train enthusiasts, and only one personally. But, working in a train store, I see many many little kids, usually 6 and under, who are just drawn in by the charm and fansination of model railroading. I think that the model railroading/train enthusism gene for the most part skips a generation. I am an example of that. My grandfather was a train enthusiast, but my mom, and her brother and sister were not really all that interested, and now I have a major obsession with trains of all shapes and sizes.

Just like in biology, when you learn about Punett Squares. The recessive gene skips a generation, and then reappears, and only appears in the immediate generation if two pure-breeding railroad enthusists are crossed.

Lets say R = non-railroad-enthusiast and r = railroad-enthusiast. R is dominant and overpowers r.

The parents are RR, and rr, a true non enthusiast, and a true enthusiast.

When RR is crossed with rr, you get Rr, Rr, Rr, and Rr. No one is a true enthusiast, but they carry the gene for enthusiasm.

When Rr is crossed with Rr, you get RR, Rr, Rr, and rr, meaning only one railroad enthusiast is born (25% chance).

See how it reappears in the second generation of children?

Wow, I am applying what I have learned in school to real life. Who'da thunk?

~[8]~ TrainFreak409 ~[8]~

[WickhamMan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FiremanLA

thats a great point ! i wouldnt have thought of it. Of course! Part of the demographic shift in model railroaders (relative age , i mean) tracks the demographic shift in society at large.......to me this means that the shift is not as alarming as it may appear! by the way, once again ask.......if the hobby is declining why do products and manufacturers proliferate? or is that speculative? another aside.....ever hear that "liars figure and figures lie?"...im not suggesting that any one is lying......but interpretation of figures is a tricky business...but the amount of figures and data presented is impressive. Some one has done some home work, there...........but once again...why so many manufacturers willing to risk their dollars on a 'shrinking' market? no one has adressed that one yet, as far as i can see ...pretty compelling data id say. Entrepenuers are not normally in the habit of chasing dead end investments! There may be a good explanation, but i am waiting to hear it.

Fireman makes an excellent point about the nature of manufacturing in this day and age. The ability to outsource and create short manufacturing runs allows for many more companies to enter (and exit) any given market. The number of sellers is not particularly indicative of the health of a market as much as the total profits within the industry. Barrier to entry is a critical factor in any market. There is no shortage of "new" resturants in most cities. However, most of them go under within 5 years. So, in fact, entrepreneurs are "in the habit of chasing dead end investments".

Again, it's really critical to decide what we are using to determine the "health" or "popularity" of the hobby. Is it number of people? Is it total sales? If it's total sales, then one Bill Gates in the hobby spending $1B on his layout would make for a very healthy hobby. If it's total hobbyists, then number of sellers or even sales volume has no real bearing on the question.

My [2c]

[Anonymous]

thats a great point ! i wouldnt have thought of it. Of course! Part of the demographic shift in model railroaders (relative age , i mean) tracks the demographic shift in society at large.......to me this means that the shift is not as alarming as it may appear! by the way, once again ask.......if the hobby is declining why do products and manufacturers proliferate? or is that speculative? another aside.....ever hear that "liars figure and figures lie?"...im not suggesting that any one is lying......but interpretation of figures is a tricky business...but the amount of figures and data presented is impressive. Some one has done some home work, there...........but once again...why so many manufacturers willing to risk their dollars on a 'shrinking' market? no one has adressed that one yet, as far as i can see ...pretty compelling data id say. Entrepenuers are not normally in the habit of chasing dead end investments! There may be a good explanation, but i am waiting to hear it.

[Anonymous]

I was pleased to discover today that there is still a hobby shop here. I've seen 10 go under since 1999, and didn't think there were any left. It's a tiny place, but it has everything that I want in it.

i'm heading there Monday to get some CN athearn GP9 dummys for my first diorama. If I can get the effect I want from the diorama, than I'll know it's worth pursuing my somewhat... grander... designs. [:D]

I've also noticed that it is virtually impossible to find trainsets anymore, even at christmas. I was looking for one for a friend's son last year and even Toys R Us didn't have any. A far cry from what I remember.

-Sheldon

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bcawthon
Sure, back in the pre-WWII years, the hobby was composed of somewhat younger men; it was a new hobby. Especially HO, which allowed the creation of a model railroad as we think of it today. But, if you look back at the photos of the legends of model railroading when they were doing their best work, you won't find a peach-fuzzed face among them.

I suggest that you go back and re-read those old MR's. There were a number of very young/teenage modelers of the first class contributing to MR in the late 1950's and 1960's. An outstanding example that comes immediately to mind is Earl Smallshaw, still one of the Greats in my mind.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

easy boys, no need to bare fangs! LOL Anyway....i wonder how other print media is doing these days??not one or two but across the board? it is a fact that mainstream media (tv, that is)is suffering in ratings because of the wide and varied choices now available....It is also obvious more real dollars are being spent on trains than ever.......again, witness walthers catalogue...all those products cannot not exist in an economic vacuum...it is an economic impossibility. glad to see someone is listening anyhow...and hey slot, ive got an extensive t jet collection too....but even if they do go down in value......i enjoy owning them to much to let go...i think that the hobby is pretty healthy actually, but who knows what the next ten or fifteen years will bring? another twist......of course we boomers are aging....but even as we age, life expectancy increases daily...so doom may be off farther than we think.....mean while im saving up to splurge on a brass engine...life is uncertain, eat dessert first !

[selector]

Agreed, bcawthon, and evermore willing, it appears, to spend increasing numbers of dollars to enter/stay in the hobby. As the costs of raw materials escalates, so does our test of nerve to stay in the game. As in all things, some fall by the way, others become even more determined, place more pressure on the finer aspects of the hobby, and drive those associated prices uppward in a soaring spiral. The stuff of dreams moves further out of reach!

Who buys gold when the prices rise steeply? Those who can afford to.

[simon1966]

I think that perhaps the wooden Thomas (or similar) train track has replaced the Lionel electric train of yesteryear under the Christmas tree. Hundreds of thousands of kids are exposed to the wooden trains at an early age. Unfortunately, unlike the Lionel set, it does not seem that playing with wooden trains is a natural pre-cursor to model railroading.

[bcawthon]

According to a survey done a couple of years ago by Kalmbach's trade-only publication, sales of model railroading products and plastic kits have been declining for several years after reaching a peak in the early 1990s. This has been balanced by growth in R/C and diecast sales. Incidentally, the peak in model railroad sales was coupled with a decline in R/C. Plastic kits have been declining throughout.

While there are a number of young people in the hobby, model railroading as we think of it has always been a hobby associated with grown men (not being politically incorrect here; just correct). The reasons for this are simple: grown men are usually married, usually employed in a situation that gives them some discretionary income and more likely to have the skills and patience required to participate at a level that will provide them with satisfaction.

Sure, back in the pre-WWII years, the hobby was composed of somewhat younger men; it was a new hobby. Especially HO, which allowed the creation of a model railroad as we think of it today. But, if you look back at the photos of the legends of model railroading when they were doing their best work, you won't find a peach-fuzzed face among them.

As BXCARMIKE noted, the boom that peaked in the early 1990s coincided with the Baby Boomers entering their prime hobby years. As with any hobby, you will get a large group of people who try it out, and a smaller group of people who stick with it.

IMHO, limited runs are simply the answer to dusty inventory. Every retailer or wholesaler judges products by their ability to fly off the shelves and manufacturers want every run to be pre-sold before they commit to it.

Considering the number of companies making investments in model railroading products, it would seem the hobby is financially strong enough to be considered sound.

These days, NMRA stands for Not Much Relevance Anymore. I would be surprised to learn that one in ten model railroaders is a member. The NMRA has needed to re-organize and refocus for years. BTW: I am an NMRA member and have been active in the organization in the past.

So maybe the total numbers are down, but they would still be sufficient to give the hobby a bright future.

[Anonymous]

Remember the mid-fifties to early sixties,model trains were the thing kids liked,then came slot cars,the whole family could do thing.Model trains felt thedrop then,American Flyer dropped out of site, Lionel was sold in cheaper sets,HO held it's own but the numbers were down.Then us baby-boomers found girls,cars ,college, work and trains went away,some right in the trash.Along came the eighties,baby-boomers discovered trains again and the hobby surged, now it's running slow,probally because the newer generaions don't have a connection to trains as we did. Another reason , I suspect is the redundantcy of hobby makers, I mean how many emd f's can you own?They seem to over saturate the market,then feel the markets slowing down.Basically, it's a hobby for me(anyhow),I just enjoy it for what it's worth.

[WickhamMan]

CNJ,

Excellent post! [bow]

Unfortunately (maybe fortunately for me), I haven’t spent the time/effort to track down the financial data from the hobby sector. The BEA site is a bit of a labyrinth and I didn’t have any breadcrumbs handy.[:D]

The information you presented was truly informative and certainly points to the answer to “are there less railroad modelers today than in the past”. I do find small, albeit picky, fault with your conclusions drawn from the regression you conducted. You utilized censored data (i.e. a data set with some missing information) to estimate a value in the censored range. Specifically, you used regression to “predict” a value that didn’t exist in the range of data used for the regression. For example, if I surveyed employed people on their income based on the amount of leisure time they had, I would certainly find that less leisure typically equaled more income. If I used a regression from that data to predict the incomes of unemployed people, I would “predict” that unemployed people actually had negative incomes (highly implausible). [D)]

From a design standpoint, there may also be a problem with equating the aging of MR’s and others’ subscription base with overall aging of the hobby population. If younger adopters did not read these magazines, then surveys of their subscribers would not tell us much about the overall population. However, you rightly point out that the rise in readership age preceded the internet boom so blaming the entire decline on the web may not hold water.

However, nitpicking aside, if we are looking for “popularity” of the hobby, we still have a lot of unanswered questions. I would frankly be very surprised if the age of individuals within the hobby were not increasing based solely on demographic data. The “boomers” make up a much larger proportion of the population than any other demographic group. So, aging of that demographic would, necessarily, increase the average age of hobbyists. However, you point out that the average age may be increasing at a rate slower than the demographic changes would predict. This might be a sign that the hobby is not losing as much popularity as we might expect or that those on the far end of the age demographic are literally dying off. This brings me to a second point.

With the massive increase in entertainment opportunities over the last two decades, we would certainly expect the number of younger adopters to decrease as a percentage of their demographic. If young boys had 4 hobbies to choose from in the 50s, they now have 40 (or more). That alone would dictate a drop in the adoption percentage. If we define popularity in raw number terms (i.e. more people = more popular), then I think we can certainly infer (although with a fairly large degree of uncertainty) that there has certainly been a decline in overall numbers. However, if we attempt to gauge popularity of the hobby the way most estimates attempt to (popularity in comparison to alternatives), then the hobby is likely not in as dire a situation but simply suffering from increased competition. My SWAG (scientific wild***guess) on this one is that other hobbies (video games especially) have leapfrogged model railroading and that the hobby’s popularity is suffering.

Thanks for the interesting discussion and access to your data.

EdW

[Anonymous]

Looking for the one in the 50; Im back!

[CNJ831]

EdW - I must say that I read your posting with considerable interest. With regard to your expressed opinions on the matters at hand, my first question would have to be whether or not you already had any firsthand knowledge of available model railroading statisics/figures, based on some of the possible avenues of reseach you suggested. If you do have some background figures please do share them.

I have spent quite a bit of time gathering facts and figures regarding the hobby over the years (the hobby's history is one of my major interests). Unfortunately, none involve the manufacturers' financial figures, for I have yet to encounter anyone willing to provide same. Perhaps some wizard of the keyboard can liberate them but for now I must work more basic trends and published data.

However, I can address in detail several of the other points or related areas you posed. Let me offer first some MR circulation figures and then comment of those of other magazines in our hobby.

MR's own published circulation figures indicate a slow but very steady rise from some 85k issues monthly in the early 1960's to 150k by 1973-74 and passing 200k in 1990. Peak circulation was reached in 1993 at 224k. From this point a steady decline ensues such that by 2004 circulation has returned to 175k, the same level experienced back in 1979. At the same time, page count (taking the January issue as an example) rises from 100 pages in 1970 to 150 by 1977 and to 200 by 1988. A maximum average of 220 pages comes around 1994. Thereafter a steady decline occurs, reaching just 148 pages this past January - a loss of some 70 pages per issue. I also offer that, under nomal circumstances, MR's ads to text ratio runs about 40:60 . This will give an idea of pages of advertisement per issue. It is to be noted also that over the years one sees a general transition from a significant percentage of large advertisers to only a few large companies and a predominance of many small customers.

A most interesting associated figure involves readership age as derived from MR's surveys over the years. Between 1944 and 1974 it is maintained within a year or two of 33 years. By 1979 it is reported as 37, at 40 in 1984, 44 in 1989 and 47 in 1993. Then, after four decades of publishing such figures, the magazine stops printing them for good...I feel for obvious reasons. These figures clearly establi***hat, long before the Internet could ever be a factor, the "average" hobbyist's age was rapidly increasing. In fact, after 1980 it was increasing by about 3 years for every five actual years that passed! The only possible explanation is that very, very few younger people were entering the hobby. This trend goes totally unabated for 15 years and is in full vigor when the surveys end.

Further, a least squares regression analysis of these age figures suggests the age value should today stand at about 55 years (the NMRA's latest survey figure I'm told stands at 61!). Likewise, in several surveys MR indicates the general number of younger people in the hobby. In 1956 they say 1 modeler in 5 is a teenager. By 1974 the figure of 1 in 9 is offered. Today there is little evidence that this could even be 1 in 50.

Combining the above statisics implies that as older hobbyists passed away or left the hobby they were being replaced man for man by early Baby Boomers, at least up until the mid 1970's. One starts to loose ground once we enter into a period when we have young adults who never experienced the peak of toy train popularity in the 1950's. Today anyone who looks around at any train venue will see it is dominated by men of around 50 or older. Fully 90% had toy trains as a child, a tradition that was not carried on beyond the 1960's. It seems difficult to deny that the figures presented indicate that older hobbyists are today dying off much faster than they are being replaced by any younger enthusiasts.

If one discounts the MR surveys as representative of the hobby as a whole, I suggest looking at numbers from the other dominant RR magazine, RMC. Clearly more of a project and complex construction oriented publication, its circulation fell steadily from 88K back in 1984 to just over 56k last year. Just as with MR's age figures, the decline begins long, long before the Internet ever could have been a factor. RMC's decline mirrors the steady dwindling of the traditional, more scratchbuilding-oriented individuals in the hobby that is acknowledged by just about everybody today. Further, as far as I can determine, no model railroading magazine has made significant inroads in its circulation figures in many years. Most have slowly lost ground in recent years.

I'll stop here, rather than run this post on and on. Originally I offered a quick half dozen indicators I felt pointed rather clearly to the current declining state of the hobby. As I suggested, I had more than ten, perhaps a dozen in total, all of which lean the same way. To me, at least, a preponderance of such numerical and observational evidence out weighs the purely speculative counters that were offered.

CNJ831

[WickhamMan]

Paul/CNJ,

I've read each of your posts with some interest given my work as an economic researcher. Each of you makes some interesting points (aside from the personal attacks) in support of your positions. As a researcher, I can certainly say that neither of you has made a compelling case for the ascendance/stagnation/decline of the industry. I don't think that either of you has even settled on the unit of analysis for the discussion. Are we trying to determine the number of people in the industry or the economic health of the industry or merely the GDP for the industry?

The final number, of course, would be the easiest to verify across years. We would merely need to find the appropriate SIC (now NIACS) code (which happens to be 423920 for the hobby industry in general) and find the appropriate annual statistics. Growth, relative to the overall GDP, would certainly indicate improving conditions in the industry, decline the opposite. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov) might provide this data although it might take some digging). That's a bit too easy though. Importantly, as interest (demand) for a given product drops, prices may or may not follow depending on the type of good. In the model railroad industry, we’ve seen product improvements drive prices up (sound, dcc, etc.) which might give a false impression of “interest” in the hobby.

Number of people within the industry would be more difficult because of the point that both of you have made (albeit tangentially) regarding what is a good metric to use for this statistic. Do magazine subscription rates tell the tale? If they did, a quick look at the SRDS data on circulation would settle the case. Your local library carries the SRDS and often can be accessed online (www.srds.com) from within the library. Alas, as you’ve both pointed out (or maybe just Paul?), subscriptions to MR and other periodicals can be (and obviously are at least at times) affected by the availability of alternative media (THE WEB!). Paul suggests using the results from other forms of media (news magazines, papers, etc.) as an instrumental variable for hobby magazines like MR, etc. This may not be a valid point as CNJ points out due to the specifics in the industry. However, I think it is likely incumbent on CNJ to point out why information in a specific industry would not have similar results to other information outlets (why would we have a failure of external validity here?). To make the point, we might look at how advertisers have reacted to any demographic shifts. Certainly the industry has some indication of where the customer base can be found. Looking at the advertising page count of MR magazine across the last 10 years of so would give us an indication of whether sellers believed that the customers that existed in the industry continued to read MR. I don’t have a big stack of MRs lying around so maybe somebody that does could do a quick “hey, they got a lot thinner over the past few years” post.

Given the lack of data, I suspect that both of you are partially correct. There is likely to be a reasonable amount of movement to the web for information and product procurement. That does not indicate that there also hasn’t been a drop in interest in the hobby as well. Like so many statistical questions, there are opposite forces at work that lead to a muddled result. Ah, but I wax on too readily. I suggest that anyone interested in this type of analysis pick up a copy of Freakonomics by Steven Levitt. He’s a brilliant economist (he says so right in the book) that gives an entertaining look at research design for questions like these and why the conventional wisdom is often wrong.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006073132X/qid=1118435524/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-1677068-3022209?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I guess I should put an opinion in here as well. Given the increasing availability of substitutions (other personal entertainment products) it would be difficult to believe that the model railroading industry has kept market share as competition for customers increased. Like other industries, it is likely that our hobby has become more of a niche player than it ever was. Also, with the demographic shifts within the population, it is highly unlikely that younger participants could come close to replacing older ones unless we have some reason to believe that they have a much large interest in the hobby than their parents. So, my opinion (and that's all it is) is that the hobby is likely in decline but that the decline will asymptote at some juncture.

Thanks for putting up with this long winded post.

EdW

[Jetrock]

What's killing the hobby? Too much arguing about where the hobby is going online, and not enough modeling in the basement!!

[selector]

Welcome, Sheldon. You won't be the first to have the patience and foresight to take their time and enjoy their sojourn in this wonderful hobby. You are in the minority, though, because most of us are a little compulsive..and impulsive (see the threads on Big Engines, and e-bay). We tend to rush in where other mortals wisely hold back and watch,with amusement.

Seriously, we all share a strong enthusiasm for the various skills, knowledge bases, and materials that are part of the hobby. Glad to have you with us!! [#welcome]

[Anonymous]

Hi, I'm new to these forums but I've been interested in Model Railroading for many years. I've got stacks of MR magazines, but not a single model train item! lol!

I'm coming back to the hobby after many years of painting miniatures and building military models. Those are very much in decline as hobbies, and I found that they no longer provide sufficient challenge for my tastes.

After researching for the past year, I have decided to attempt to model the (now gone) railroad that used to run here, set in the year 1982. This will not be easy, but I'm looking forward to the challenge.

I'm 29, and I won't be building a lyaout anytime soon. Too many other priorities eat up my time and I have a severe lack of space. I will build some dioramas to pracitice skills, but that's probably going to be it for about the next 10-15 years.

I, of course, have no idea what the hobby will be like by that time so I'm going to spend the intervening time stockpiling things I think I'll eventually need so when the time comes I should be good and prepared.

Its likely that the hobby is experiencing a decline, but there are new people joining up. It just might take us a while to have anything built! ;-)

Happy to meet you all,

-Sheldon

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar


I am going to take one paragraph and rant about today's products and how they are offered. I recently pre ordered some products to the factory by a deadline because they might not be availible after a deadline.

Or worse not produced at all due to too few orders. This is not fair to the majority of modelers. Take the walthers barge situation for example.. They made these for a few years then "Retired" recent MR issues related to sea based railroading cause much interest in these kits that are no longer being produced.

I sold my barge set on ebay as I dont have the room for twice.. no.. more than twice the orginal retail MSRP of both Barge and Float. Nice profit to me but Walthers can see this post and take note that they need to start making these kits again. The bidding wars on Ebay goes to the one with the most dollars.. not the average hobby person who just needs a barge.

Not to be critical, but there is something I don't understand. If the way things are produced and marketed today is, as you say, unfair to the majority of modelers, weren't you being unfair to the majority of modelers or the average hobby person who just needs a barge? Both you and Walthers have the same goal - maximize profit. It doesn't seem right that you can want Walthers and other manufacturers to do "what is fair" to the "average hobby person who just needs a barge" or "the majority of modelers" when you yourself don't want to. While I do wi***hat the variables that control the economic model will change so that limited production will not rule the day - I can't blame the various manufacturers, distributors, retailers etc for using what works best for them.

Just my opinion.

[selector]

Affect, effect, except, accept, prespicacious, perspicuous, portend, pretend, averse, adverse,...words all meant to trip the unwary.

When I see them misused, I consider two things. I don't submit mistake-free posts very often, and the other is that no one has ever criticized me for my typos or misuses on this forum.

To me, if the intent is clear, I take the message for what it is, and respond in kind. Most of us, thankfully, are of the same mind.

[Paul3]

You're kinda funny, there Mr. CNJ. Why, just last week or so, someone accused me of being too brief on the Atlas Forum, and now you're accusing me of being too longwinded. Seems I can't win, so guess I won't try to.

You, however, just cannot accept that 1). Anybody under 30 is a model railroader, & 2). That the internet (a mere "amusement" acording to you) has any effect on anything other than with eBay. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

Hey, guys! It is what it is, and hard evidence as to just what it is seems to be hard to come by. As an aside, does ANYBODY know the difference between ACCEPT and EXCEPT? Except has been used in this thread several times when, clearly, the meaning was accept. Hint: I accept all except what I cannot accept.

[CNJ831]

Paul, the "Well here we go again" comes from the fact that whenever you post it's always a long, rambling bunch of snippets and partial quotes for which you argue a point totally without factual evidence. Nary a post is brief, to the point, and directly addressing the questions with opposite facts. Counters to any position seem to be continually a matter of, "I have to assume", "but isn't it possible", "those figures are too incomplete", "I can't personally accept that", et al. Such responses are mainly a matter smoke and mirrors to avoid answering the assertions with any factual evidence to the contrary. You content that all surveys are bias. No matter what the base, they can not be representative. And just because they are on-line, there has to be a shadow legion of younger hobbyists who use the internet as their sole basis for all modeling information at the expense of the magazines. The best part of your latest post is the classic statement regarding evidence of hardcopy vs. the Internet, "Do I have evidence of this? Nope. Do I care? Nope, not for my opinion." Great justification in any intelligent discussion!

Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion on the subject at hand and this I would never contest. However, I feel it is improper to post assertions that all published evidential material should be put asside in favor of alternate explanations resting on baseless personal opinion. Such nonsense is a disservice to readers of this thread. Each of my posts included valid, published material any reader could locate themselves with a little effort. Other than your one post with a couple of unlabled graphs you have provided nothing in the way of documented facts or figures to support any of your views. You offer nothing except hearsay and opinion. I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to decide whether spurious opinion or verifiable evidence carries the greater weight.

CNJ831

[Paul3]

CNJ831 wrote:

QUOTE: Well, here we go again Paul...

Oh, c'mon, you make it sound like I'm posting 20 times a day. Look at my post count. In the past 3 years, I've only got around 200 posts. That's less than one a week. Whatever, you just seem awfully fond of that phrase...

QUOTE: Yes, I've already agreed that the printed news media is suffering from TV and the Internet and I acknowledge the sources you cite regarding exactly that. But where does it say that this applies to technical, craft, or instructional magazines?

Sigh. I stated that the internet is a big problem for periodicals. You challenged me, claiming that the intenet was merely "an amusement", and I proved it that it really is a problem for the industry as a whole. I have no idea (and no easy way to find out) about the specifics of certain magazine subscription numbers. But isn't it possible that the intenet is siphoning off new, younger subscribers to MR?

QUOTE: I could make all sorts of claims about MR's readership or non-subscribers but that's pointless. Without some sort of hard numerical evidence such claims become meaningless speculation.

All you have for facts and figures are MR & NMRA surveys. Hardly comprehensive, now are they? Please tell me how one determines the number of people (and their ages) who don't submit a survey response, hmmm? Once you think of a way, I'll get you some "direct evidence". Perhaps the next MR survey should be both online and by hardcopy to get some decent figures.

But until then, I will assume that since 90% of the people under 30 are online, that younger model railroaders are getting their MR-fix online, not by hardcopy. Do I have evidence of this? Nope. Do I care? Nope, not for my opinion. You can accuse me of spouting "meaningless speculation" all you want. What I find amusing is that with all the garbage that gets posted to internet forums all the time, you take the time out of your day to come gunning for me.

QUOTE: As Joe F. has also indicated above and I've said as well, the Internet is not nearly the great influence in our particular hobby some would like to make it appear.

50% of all model railroaders isn't that great an influence??? Man, what does it take?

QUOTE: Nor has it so drastically changed the ways of hobbyists that all previous and current statisical material regarding the hobby's make-up has suddenly become invalid.

Invalid? No. Incomplete...yes.

QUOTE: Past MR surveys, circulation figures, et al. are still the best ways to evaluate what is happening in model railroading.

They were the only way, and since there was little competition for model railroaders' attention, it made all the sense in the world to only use those figures. But the world has changed, as much as you think it hasn't.

QUOTE: As to the productions runs question, the total number of DL-109's made with New Haven markings was cited on the NHT&HA webpage.

Yeah, and I asked by whom? I don't recall anyone employed by Life-Like ever posting on the NHRHTA Forum. For all we know, it was some guy only speculating how big the production run was with no direct knowledge.

QUOTE: Obscure prototype or not, I see no reason to believe that run would not have been a typical example of other limited runs.

Manufacturers these days make production runs based on pre-orders plus a certain percentage (sorry, you'll just have to take my word on that one). How many non-New Haven fans wanted DL109's? Southern had a couple, CNW had one, ATSF had one, RI had a few, etc. These were rare, extremely rare prototypes outside of New England. How much interest do you think there was, nationwide, for a DL109? My opinion, not much.

QUOTE: Reaching a wrong conclusion based on one or two trends is quite possible. Doing so using ten or more reduces that probability to almost nil.

The only problem with that statement is that you are only using MR surveys, NMRA surveys, and your own anecdotal evidence. That's hardly "ten or more".

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[CNJ831]

Well, here we go again Paul...

Yes, I've already agreed that the printed news media is suffering from TV and the Internet and I acknowledge the sources you cite regarding exactly that. But where does it say that this applies to technical, craft, or instructional magazines? MR is hardly a news magazine, it's an informational guide and instructional publication. People don't retain copies of NewsWeek but nearly all of us have stacks of older MRs around. Has there been a decline in the circulation of National Geographic, Hot Rod, or perhaps woodworking magazines? These are comparable publications, not news publications, so please show me numbers concerning them.

You go on to ask, "Well, what if not all model railroaders subscribe to MR?" Well, I'm sure they don't! But show me some evidence beyond baseless opinion that MR subscribers don't represent a typical cross section of all hobbyists in their actual proportions. And you go on to say, "...isn't it possible that there is a large number of younger model railroaders that don't subscribe to MR...?" To this I must once again ask where is there ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THIS? We certainly don't see overwhelming evidence of young people at train shows, in clubs, or at conventions. Are they also all in hinding? I could make all sorts of claims about MR's readership or non-subscribers but that's pointless. Without some sort of hard numerical evidence such claims become meaningless speculation.

As Joe F. has also indicated above and I've said as well, the Internet is not nearly the great influence in our particular hobby some would like to make it appear. Nor has it so drastically changed the ways of hobbyists that all previous and current statisical material regarding the hobby's make-up has suddenly become invalid. Past MR surveys, circulation figures, et al. are still the best ways to evaluate what is happening in model railroading.

As to the productions runs question, the total number of DL-109's made with New Haven markings was cited on the NHT&HA webpage. Obscure prototype or not, I see no reason to believe that run would not have been a typical example of other limited runs. As I've already said, I'm sure some very popular diesel engines are probably produced in somewhat, but not drastically larger, numbers.

And, no, I don't just,"...take all the evidence (sic) and emphasize the negative." But I'm keen enough that when I see a startling confluence of trends and changes in the hobby that I am not blind to them, nor what they point to. Reaching a wrong conclusion based on one or two trends is quite possible. Doing so using ten or more reduces that probability to almost nil.

CNJ831

[jfugate]

My rough guestimate with 30% of seniors online, 90% of under 30 folks online, and the average American online stat of 70% online -- is that about 50% of model railroaders are online.

I think this general guestimate works because of the general age skew being that most modelers today are probably over 30 and a fair share are 50+, if the gray heads at conventions and meets is any indication of the typical modeler.

The irony to me with all this is that anyone in the hobby who thinks they can "get the word out" to their audience just by using the internet -- is sadly mistaken. Throw in MR's recent snafu of going internet only on their public events listing and you can clearly see the less-than-ideal way this informs people.

I think the real zinger in MR's decision here is their paying advertisers would not sit still for one minute if MR cut their audience in half. Yet this is what going internet only does for the event listings.

The point is, the internet is certainly making a dent, and yes, it is significant, but it's not the overwhelming influence people might think it is -- yet. That day will come, but it's going to take another 10-20 years.

[Paul3]

CNJ831 wrote:

QUOTE: There you go again, Paul, a long post with not a single statistical fact or figure to bolster your arguments...just more unsupported opinion.

Not unlike yourself, Mr. Anonymous (don't you just love people who attack you that hide behind a handle?). BTW, still think I live in CT?

QUOTE: You brought the Internet into this discussion, not I. I only replied to your statement that, "Internet use is a big problem with periodical publications..." Since YOU brought it up, why don't YOU provide the hard numbers how it's affected MR's circulation.

I can't provide the hard numbers for MR (how would that be even possible?), but I can quote some sources that says the internet is effecting periodical publications (which are magazines and newspapers). From www.stateofthenewsmedia.com, the Annual Report 2005 has several interesting quotes:

"There is real hope in the numbers of people who seek news online, particularly the young, a group that shows scant interest in traditional media."

"There is more evidence than before, too, that the Web is taking viewers away from television, and that people who read newspapers are doing that increasingly on-screen rather than in print."

Average Age of News Magazine Readers
Compared to U.S. population, 1995 - 2004
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/images/narrative_charts/magazines/aud_c.jpg

Regular Audiences of Select Media
1994-2004, Select Years
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/images/narrative_charts/magazines/aud_i.jpg

(note that the Online News is the only upward trend on the chart)

"How do they bring in younger readers who are interested in the news, but who do not normally turn to magazines for current events coverage and context? The answer is probably complicated. Studies show this younger audience is the most comfortable with using the Internet to get news."

QUOTE: There were no anonymous suverys cited by me. I based my age figures on decades of MR published data (the best source available in the hobby) and Joe Fugate, who posted the facts re the gov. survey some days ago, posts the link once again.

You said, "Elsewhere, a government survey has found only a small fraction of those 60 or older are on-line." That sounded like an "anonymous survey" to me. Now, of course, we know where the data came from, but I didn't when I posted. I'm sorry, but I don't read every thread on this forum, so how could I know that Jeff posted it days ago? You didn't say where the info came from.

QUOTE: What it does still boil down to a very great many, and perhaps even a majority of hobbyists, are not actively on-line nor have left MR to go there.

You claim to know the above because surveys in MR show that their readers are 55+, and that the majority of those over 60 are not online. Correct? Well, what if not all model railroaders subscribe to MR (a safe bet)? As the evidence I posted above shows, younger people are not buying traditional media like they used to. In light of that fact, isn't it possible that there is a large number of younger model railroaders that don't subscribe to MR and therefore are not part of the MR survey? That these people are going to alternative sources of hobby info like the internet?

QUOTE: So the NMRA is composed of old guys and isn't relevant...because you say so. I agree, the organization is fading but it's just as much a cross section of hobbyists as any other group, club, or organization out there and its figures just as applicable. If you don't think so, let's see valid representational figures from groups you feel are.

But don't you see? That's the problem, there is no valid representational group anymore. 20-30 years ago, the only way for modelers to share ideas was with magazines, NMRA meetings, clubs, and newsletters. It was very easy to judge the state of the hobby by using MR surveys, NMRA numbers, club status, etc., because it was the only game in town. The internet has changed all that. Now there are who-knows-how-many people on the forums that can exchange ideas without being an MR subscriber, an NMRA member, a member of a club, etc. This changes the traditional way to measure the state of the hobby. Some way, we've got to include internet usage, but I don't know how.

QUOTE: You say spare you the low production numbers for the DL-109. However, it is probably THE ONLY MODEL for which some sort of numbers can actually be found. I expect they are rather typical of most of today's limited runs (certain popular late model diesels possibly do rather better). If they aren't typical, please show us all your figures that prove otherwise.

To use a single, rare prototype model to signify the decline of the hobby in general is ludicrous. It's too bad it's the only one you have numbers for (and where did those come from? Certainly not Life-Like. Did Rick Abramson leak the production numbers?). I'd be far more impressed if the prototype in quesiton was actually produced in numbers greater than 100.

WRT the WGH campaign, please quote exactly where they state they are aiming at the 45-60 age bracket.

QUOTE: I'm not really a gloom-and-doomer. I'm a longtime hobbyist whose eyes are wide open to the obvious trends that have surfaced in our beloved hobby over the past decade or so.

Oh, no, you're not a "gloom-and-doomer", you just take all the evidence and emphasize the negative.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[CNJ831]

There you go again, Paul, a long post with not a single statistical fact or figure to bolster your arguments...just more unsupported opinion.

You brought the Internet into this discussion, not I. I only replied to your statement that, "Internet use is a big problem with periodical publications..." Since YOU brought it up, why don't YOU provide the hard numbers how it's affected MR's circulation.

There were no anonymous suverys cited by me. I based my age figures on decades of MR published data (the best source available in the hobby) and Joe Fugate, who posted the facts re the gov. survey some days ago, posts the link once again. So, won't you please provide references of equal quality to substantiate your contentions?

I cited 55 years as the "average" of todays' modeler and the suggested that the majority of hobbyists are 60 or better...very little different. You attempt to make some sort of unclear point about many modelers being 50 or better. There is no absolute cutoff where something happens to change the nature of hobbyists, so what difference is +/- 5 years (from 55) going to make on the question. What it does still boil down to a very great many, and perhaps even a majority of hobbyists, are not actively on-line nor have left MR to go there.

So the NMRA is composed of old guys and isn't relevant...because you say so. I agree, the organization is fading but it's just as much a cross section of hobbyists as any other group, club, or organization out there and its figures just as applicable. If you don't think so, let's see valid representational figures from groups you feel are.

You say spare you the low production numbers for the DL-109. However, it is probably THE ONLY MODEL for which some sort of numbers can actually be found. I expect they are rather typical of most of today's limited runs (certain popular late model diesels possibly do rather better). If they aren't typical, please show us all your figures that prove otherwise.

While Kalmbach announced the WGH program in the pages of MR, it was hardly the principle supporter when you look at the long list of companies involved. Surely they were all worried about something serious happening if they were willing to commit a million dollars to the program. What was it for if not a declining bottom line? And if you actually read the WGH manifesto you'll read that the campaign is intentionally aimed at men 45-60 years of age, not just "everyone". And what an amazing coincidence that these are just the guys in the best financial position to bolster the sagging profits of the companies involved! Any benefit to Kalmbach and MR's circulation was going to be very secondary.

Yes, I'm sure your club's open houses bring in a lot of youngsters. Slot car race tracks would do the same thing and I've seen it too at model air shows. If it moves fast, maybe has blinking lights, and makes noise, kids will love it. But seeing a quality layout a few times as a child isn't likely to leave a long lasting impression in more than a very few of them and is hardly a substitute for the experience of have a Lionel/Flyer setup in your house as a kid to play with for hours...that's where the enthusiasm for trains came from for most of us. Its unlikely such will come from Thomas.

I'm not really a gloom-and-doomer. I'm a longtime hobbyist whose eyes are wide open to the obvious trends that have surfaced in our beloved hobby over the past decade or so.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

railroadyoshi.. get some tyco trainsets.

Have the kids cra***hem. I crashed mine alot and they still ran. Basically the set I had was only good for crashing and derailing. =)

Give them that, it will protect your more delicate stuff.

[railroadyoshi]

Being 12, I think there is a problem in the number of new modelers, but it is not as bad as you think. Sit in your hobby shop for a while, and you will notice the kids come and go.
My favorite activity on saturday is to bike down to my LHS.
Still there has to be away to intrigue young modelers.

When we had a party, the only thing the kids wanted to do was crash my beloved trains
(and succeeded)

Could that be harnessed?

Look around though:
at your LHS
conventions
NMRA meetings
Clubs

You will see kids my age at many of these meetings

Siddharth Agrawal