The supposed need for ever increasing accuracy in our models has been and is currently driven by a relatively small faction of highly vocal individuals in the hobby, the consequence of which has been to caused the manufacturers to attempt to offer ever nearer museum quality models...at prices that are progressively moving beyond the range of the average hobbyist.
Horse droppings! The Rapido O-B's are roughly the equivalent of $10.80 in 1963 dollars. If you bought an old Walthers metsal and wood passenger car kit, the superdetail kit, trucks, couplers, interior kit, etc., you'd be pretty close to the $10.80.
And what's the matter with highly accurate models? It sure beats the crudely cast lumps that vaguely resembled railroad equipment that we had back in the day.
In any case, the "average" modeler (whoever he is) has a range of choices we could only dream about 40-50 years ago.
Andre
Andre- I'm thinking that, for many, the question would be more along the lines of---how close up do I get to see any of those details?---and if the answer ends up---3 feet--then we definitly may have an issue here.
But, I find that sometimes---I like sittin' here and just looking at the thing up close---mind, this is in N scale yet---and yes, if I want to buy the thing, I may save---ohno ohno---for that very loke.
Some of this angst experienced recently may also be part of that demand curve getting more picky and, well, getting addressed------all to the better for the tin hat brigade, I guess.
And we all know that that is all ----equine plumage-----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
andrechapelon The supposed need for ever increasing accuracy in our models has been and is currently driven by a relatively small faction of highly vocal individuals in the hobby, the consequence of which has been to caused the manufacturers to attempt to offer ever nearer museum quality models...at prices that are progressively moving beyond the range of the average hobbyist. Horse droppings! The Rapido O-B's are roughly the equivalent of $10.80 in 1963 dollars. If you bought an old Walthers metsal and wood passenger car kit, the superdetail kit, trucks, couplers, interior kit, etc., you'd be pretty close to the $10.80. And what's the matter with highly accurate models? It sure beats the crudely cast lumps that vaguely resembled railroad equipment that we had back in the day. In any case, the "average" modeler (whoever he is) has a range of choices we could only dream about 40-50 years ago. Andre
Andre, will you ever get it through your head that the prices of items bought with disposal income can not be adjusted through the years based on the CPI? There never have been any model trains in the CPI's market basket, nor have I ever seen them considered as among the "necessities". These are two separate categories or areas. If other items purchased with disposal income are any indication, than calculations for adjusting the prices of model trains through the years must be only a faction of the regular CPI.
Regardless, as I pointed out upstream, the fact is that the average hobbyist bases what is accurate on the opinions of others, not through his personal knowledge and this is nothing new. You should know this if you've been in the hobby as long as you claim. Likewise, the question of precise accuracy of models was not even that great a consideration in the hobby prior to the rise of Internet forums. Those who were diehard prototypers modified existing models to suit them but the majority of guys were quite satisfied with their more generic examples...obtained at very reasonable prices. It was on the Internet forums that hobbyists were told by various self appointed prototype authorities of inaccuracies in new and existing models and essentially convinced that they must have far more accurate models.
When accuracy serves to drive the price of models beyond the ability of most hobbyists to afford the item outright, or requires saving up months and months of a hobby budget to fund the purchase, that isn't great for the hobby. Rather, it drives people away.
So, is a single train of only half a dozen passenger cars really worth around $500, especially after paying maybe $350 for the loco to pull it? To some, I suppose it is, but it's a small minority. Nevertheless, what it does is to establish a yet higher plateau as a jumping off point for the pricing of someone else's next model. Manufacturers will push this as far as the market will bear and I can't really blame them. This is what we've been seeing for at least a decade now. Rapido's next offering is a new caboose, chock full of accurate interior detail that is essentially invisible to the viewer...for $60. How soon will it be before typical passenger equipment exceeds $100 per and freight cars $50 - less than three years, four at the outside? As I pointed out earlier, this is just the way brass evolved and you see where that facet of the hobby is today.
CNJ831
When will you get it through your head that it doesn't matter whether or not model railroading products are included in the CPI? What matters is the relationship between MRR prices the prices of everything else. If that relationship remains stable (which has been the case overall), then hobby items are no more expensive than they have ever been on a relative basis.
You are also forgetting that 50 years ago, the choice was essentially between O and HO. S scale had minimal commercial support. OO was defunct for all practical purposes, N was just on the horizon, and nobody was thinking of a scale as small as 1/220 There were no such things as the scales that are currently used with 45mm gauge track (at least not on a commercial basis). Now you can buy off-the shelf live steam in 1/32 scale, S scale has more commercial support than at any time in the past, and N scale, which was non-existent is now the second most popular scale in this country. More stuff in multiple scales is available than at any time in the history of the hobby. Not only that, but more information about the prototype is available as well. Yet you are in the process of composing a funeral dirge for the hobby.
Relatively strict accuracy wasn't in great demand because real knowledge of the prototype wasn't that widespread. It's easy to be satisfied with generic items vaguely resembling railroad items if you don't know any better. I was satisfied with Athearn cars painted in Daylight colors until I bought a copy of Richard's Wright's encyclopedic work on the subject way back when.
Just who are these self-appointed prototype authorities of whom you speak? If they know more about the prototype than anyone else, then they are authorities regardless of who appointed them to the position. Even if one free-lances, one can benefit by a wide and deep knowledge of the prototype (see Bill Darnaby, Koester in the age of Allegheny Midland, Alan McLellan et. al). Oh, I forget, these are also self-appointed authorities and therefore to be ignored.
Would you have us return to that "Golden Age" when steam locomotive models were lumps of flash infested metal and Athearn's "Blomberg" truck bore only the tiniest resemblance to an actual Blomberg and the Athearn's "Hi-F" drive F7 had two speeds, stop and high sub-sonic (regardless of direction)?
CNJ831 The sad joke in all of this is that, prior to the rise of Internet forums, 90% of hobbyist really didn't know or care all that much whether their rollingstock was absolutely accurate or not and therefore relatively inexpensive, more or less generic, equipment was perfectly acceptable to the majority of modelers. If you wanted free-standing grabs or ladders, different doors, or see-through runningboards to match some prototype, you added them yourself...because you were actually a modeler.
The sad joke in all of this is that, prior to the rise of Internet forums, 90% of hobbyist really didn't know or care all that much whether their rollingstock was absolutely accurate or not and therefore relatively inexpensive, more or less generic, equipment was perfectly acceptable to the majority of modelers. If you wanted free-standing grabs or ladders, different doors, or see-through runningboards to match some prototype, you added them yourself...because you were actually a modeler.
You got THAT right! I didn't even consider if a loco was actually made in a proper road name or if it had the correct plow or dynamic brakes before I joined this forum. If I saw it at my LHS and liked it and had the $$$ I just bought it. Now that I've become more of a discerning buyer, it's almost taken some of the "fun" out of it.
andrechapelonJust who are these self-appointed prototype authorities of whom you speak? If they know more about the prototype than anyone else, then they are authorities regardless of who appointed them to the position. Even if one free-lances, one can benefit by a wide and deep knowledge of the prototype (see Bill Darnaby, Koester in the age of Allegheny Midland, Alan McLellan et. al). Oh, I forget, these are also self-appointed authorities and therefore to be ignored.
I see. In order to satisfy those 'experts' on who qualifies as a prototyping expert we are going to have to find a school/university that can offer a certificate program/ grad program on locomotive history/Industrial archeology. And then watch the equine plumage fly over what school does the program------I can see this coming a mile away-------
I guess that's why the hobby has never been "fun" for me. My first issue of MR was the August, 1957 issue. There was an article on the Houston Model Railroad Club. One of the members had an SP 4-10-2. Unfortunately, that "model" was equipped with a tender appropriate only for an SP GS-4 or GS-6. Even at the tender age of 11, I knew that the 4-10-2's didn't use that tender. That kind of knowledge just ruined the hobby for me for years afterward.
That and Athearn's HO scale F7 answer to the Bell X-1 (the 1:1 model flown by Chuck Yeager in 1947).
blownout cylinder andrechapelonJust who are these self-appointed prototype authorities of whom you speak? If they know more about the prototype than anyone else, then they are authorities regardless of who appointed them to the position. Even if one free-lances, one can benefit by a wide and deep knowledge of the prototype (see Bill Darnaby, Koester in the age of Allegheny Midland, Alan McLellan et. al). Oh, I forget, these are also self-appointed authorities and therefore to be ignored. I see. In order to satisfy those 'experts' on who qualifies as a prototyping expert we are going to have to find a school/university that can offer a certificate program/ grad program on locomotive history/Industrial archeology. And then watch the equine plumage fly over what school does the program------I can see this coming a mile away-------
Naturally, any school/university offering such a course would have to be accredited. Who's going to accredit the school? People who actually have first-hand knowledge? I doubt it. They won't actually have the necessary certification to do the accreditation.
This is off topic, but that reminds me. Where did the Wright Brothers get their pilot's licenses? For that matter, who certified that Matthias Baldwin actually knew anything about building steam locomotives?
andrechapelonThis is off topic, but that reminds me. Where did the Wright Brothers get their pilot's licenses? For that matter, who certified that Matthias Baldwin actually knew anything about building steam locomotives?
To answer this OO topic---Baldwin wouldn't have needed the silly thing---LOL!!
Harry Partch, a 20th century composer of experimental/classical pieces and instrument designer( bass marimba et al) used to go around talking about dance schools set up in reaction to 'classical'---read--ossified--ideas/methods---that soon became THEMSELVES ossified, or 'set in their own ways/means'. Thus the circle completes itself-------
May as well lock this thread. We have more or less reached the ramblings of the absurd and inane.
Harry Partch, a 20th century composer of experimental/classical pieces and instrument designer( bass marimba et al) used to go around talking about dance schools set up in reaction to 'classical'---read--ossified--ideas/methods---that soon became THEMSELVES ossified, or 'set in their own ways/means'. Thus the circle completes itself
Just in an inadequate attempt to keep this on topic, what you're basically saying is that the roundy-round 4x8 layout isn't the only thing that has been done to death.
That, and it got ossified in part because it became prohibitively expensive "for the average enthusiast" (to use the blurb on Peco Pubs "Railway Modeler" front cover, at least that's what it used to be).
DCC is already ossified. The next great leap forward in the hobby will be micro-robots running live steam locomotives from the cab. Needless to say, this will doom an already doomed hobby.
Andre - who wonders how much longer this thread will go before being locked. Locking it, will of course set the stage for the next joker who comes along to kvetch about the cost of the hobby. Shouldn't take much more than 3 to 4 weeks before we see this practically fossilized equine miraculously resurrected.
don7 May as well lock this thread. We have more or less reached the ramblings of the absurd and inane.
But Don, it was absurd and inane from the beginning. It always is. Yet the topic is always resurrected.
Prices rise...
Consumers complain...
We learn to adapt...
Threads move on...
...That's the cycle of the MRR world.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.