Well, as far as 'children's toys', let me put this into another perspective as to a 'hobby'. Music. Any number of 'amateurs' take up musical instruments, some of them graduate to a more 'professional' level. But the question becomes now, who gets the most enjoyment? The 'amatuers' with their garage band of Fender guitars and Ludwig drums or the more 'serious' (whatever that is) 'professional' on a Steinway?
Each one does what they do to the best of their ability and enjoys it within their own concept. So does that make Chopin more 'viable' than Rock? As a musician, I think not. Each has their own place and each has their own rewards to the musician involved. But unless one makes their total living in the music field, it's still pretty much a 'hobby'. An 'avocation' rather than a 'vocation.'
So, unless one makes their living being a Model Railroader, it's still a Hobby. Whichever way one chooses to approach it, as pure enjoyment, or as a detailed miniature re-creation of the world as they see (or wish) it.
It's still a Hobby. Lionel or the latest multi-thousand dollar brass import with detail clear down to the very last to-scale lug-nut on the Feedwater heater. It's to be enjoyed WITHIN THE PERSONAL CONCEPT of what you want it to be.
Frankly, sometimes reading some of the posts in this Forum, I almost want to shake my head, say "The Hell With It" and drag out my old 1951 Marx train with the lithographed metal boxcars, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
loathar CNJ831 while the latter have long been regarded as simply children's toys. Check the prices on those "childrens toys" lately??
CNJ831 while the latter have long been regarded as simply children's toys.
while the latter have long been regarded as simply children's toys.
Check the prices on those "childrens toys" lately??
And those dang "toys" have a full on reproduction/counterfeit industry built around them. In antique buying I'm almost always finding more of the counterfeits than the real "toys"----reason? Prices, although these have started to come down.
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/
twhite Well, as far as 'children's toys', let me put this into another perspective as to a 'hobby'. Music. Any number of 'amateurs' take up musical instruments, some of them graduate to a more 'professional' level. But the question becomes now, who gets the most enjoyment? The 'amatuers' with their garage band of Fender guitars and Ludwig drums or the more 'serious' (whatever that is) 'professional' on a Steinway? Each one does what they do to the best of their ability and enjoys it within their own concept. So does that make Chopin more 'viable' than Rock? As a musician, I think not. Each has their own place and each has their own rewards to the musician involved. But unless one makes their total living in the music field, it's still pretty much a 'hobby'. An 'avocation' rather than a 'vocation.' So, unless one makes their living being a Model Railroader, it's still a Hobby. Whichever way one chooses to approach it, as pure enjoyment, or as a detailed miniature re-creation of the world as they see (or wish) it. It's still a Hobby. Lionel or the latest multi-thousand dollar brass import with detail clear down to the very last to-scale lug-nut on the Feedwater heater. It's to be enjoyed WITHIN THE PERSONAL CONCEPT of what you want it to be. Frankly, sometimes reading some of the posts in this Forum, I almost want to shake my head, say "The Hell With It" and drag out my old 1951 Marx train with the lithographed metal boxcars, LOL! Tom
Hey Tom, how about very last to scale lug nuts on the feedwater heater on a Lionel?
BTW, I for one would LOVE to see some pics of your 1951 Marx stuff.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
twhite Well, as far as 'children's toys', let me put this into another perspective as to a 'hobby'. Music. Any number of 'amateurs' take up musical instruments, some of them graduate to a more 'professional' level. But the question becomes now, who gets the most enjoyment? The 'amatuers' with their garage band of Fender guitars and Ludwig drums or the more 'serious' (whatever that is) 'professional' on a Steinway? Each one does what they do to the best of their ability and enjoys it within their own concept. So does that make Chopin more 'viable' than Rock? As a musician, I think not. Each has their own place and each has their own rewards to the musician involved. But unless one makes their total living in the music field, it's still pretty much a 'hobby'. An 'avocation' rather than a 'vocation.' So, unless one makes their living being a Model Railroader, it's still a Hobby. Whichever way one chooses to approach it, as pure enjoyment, or as a detailed miniature re-creation of the world as they see (or wish) it. It's still a Hobby. Lionel or the latest multi-thousand dollar brass import with detail clear down to the very last to-scale lug-nut on the Feedwater heater. It's to be enjoyed WITHIN THE PERSONAL CONCEPT of what you want it to be.
Well put, very well put, my feelings exactly!
When I read the OP. I almost clicked out. I figured that it would turn into a bunch of defending your scale then escalate into accuracy level. I got curious as to how long it would take. I am impressed that it only started and flickered out.
If I run the cheap used and you run the very best, or I build a layout that is well, let's just say an "inaccurate" train set, and you run a prototypically correct after years of research railroad, if we both enjoy, that's ALL that matters. But to respond "on topic", the amount of HO is predominantly larger wherever I go. (at least 60%. At least) I'm sure there are exceptions. Therefore, I would assume HO is a more popular scale. I don't, however, see any other scales giving up their scale because HO has more stuff readily available. Have fun with our toys folks.
Todd
Central Illinoyz
In order to keep my position as Master and Supreme Ruler of the House, I don't argue with my wife.
I'm a small town boy. A product of two people from even smaller towns. I don’t talk on topic….. I just talk.
As for the descriptor being used for our trains being 'toys', I heard one of my car collector friends refer to his new Lamborghini Galliardo (sp?) as his favorite ---"Toy". So, if he don't care if the dang thing is seen as a toy why should we?
CNJ831,For any survey to be accurate they need to ask more then a X number of modelers in a well establish organization..
The fact is the majority of the NMRA members are HO modelers..Well there it is like it or not its a fact that can not be denied or twisted to suit ones needs in these "novice forums"...
As far as MR and RMC survey-again they're not worth the paper committed to them because the survives are usually sent to the subscribers.
Unless you have the real facts and figures your comments is no more then your opinion just like everybody's else's(including mine) and carries no real weight..
Those that has the facts and figures ain't talking.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
blownout cylinder loathar CNJ831 while the latter have long been regarded as simply children's toys. Check the prices on those "childrens toys" lately?? And those dang "toys" have a full on reproduction/counterfeit industry built around them. In antique buying I'm almost always finding more of the counterfeits than the real "toys"----reason? Prices, although these have started to come down.
With regard to three rail O-gauge (along with Flyer S) having been split off from consideration as part of the "adult" model railroading hobby way back in the 1950's, I don't think most today fully appreciate the reasoning behind this.
Back in the 1940's and 50's Lionel, Flyer, Marx, et al. "model railroaders" were probably 98%-99% kids. Adults in the scale hobby at the time wished to totally disengage themselves from the appearance of grown men playing with their children's toy trains. Even today very few serious modelers regard their expensive scale models, or layouts, as toys. The logical path was to regard "tinplate" and scale trains as two distinctly different hobbies. Nearly all of Lionel's locomotives and much of their rolling stock wasn't only out of scale/proportion but often even of different semi-scales from item to item (Flyer was much closer to "scale"). The adult market wanted only items that were in perfect 1/87 scale and proportion. This was an understandable point of separation.
To a significant degree, much of this situation still exists today. Without question, the majority of guys in what may be regarded as "O" today are Lionel enthusiasts, who replicate toy train layouts they recall, or dreamed of having, in their youth. To be sure, there are factions of Hi-Railers among them who are modeling at a level that would place them on a par with the best HO or N layouts but they represent a very small minority.
Unquestionably, the price and quality of many O-gauge three rail models today are the equal or better of HO brass. But again, owners of such trains have a very small representation in the hobby. And, of course, very expensive but toy-like Lionel models continue to be big sellers among a portion of adult hobbyists, making it difficult today to drop the longstand seperation that has existed for over five decades.
CNJ831
CNJ831 wrote:
Incidentally, HO became the dominant scale all the way back in 1942 and has maintained a consistant 65%+/- segment of the hobby ever since the early 1950's.
I would question your dates on this statement. I am the first to admit that wikipedia can at times be less than accurate, but their information, to borrow your phrase, Echos other things that I have read in the past.
HO started in England in the 1930's, and became POPULAR in the US, during the 1950's and STARTED to surpass O-Gauge in Popularity in the Early 1960's.
Your statement that HO became the DOMINANT(emphasis mine) scale all the way back in 1942, is the only place that I have read that HO's domination of the hobby started that early, and contradicts everything else that I have read, in that regard
BRAKIE CNJ831,For any survey to be accurate they need to ask more then a X number of modelers in a well establish organization.. The fact is the majority of the NMRA members are HO modelers..Well there it is like it or not its a fact that can not be denied or twisted to suit ones needs in these "novice forums"... As far as MR and RMC survey-again they're not worth the paper committed to them because the survives are usually sent to the subscribers. Unless you have the real facts and figures your comments is no more then your opinion just like everybody's else's(including mine) and carries no real weight.. Those that has the facts and figures ain't talking.
I'm afraid that the latter is untrue, Brakie. If MR included a reasonably large sampling, and there is no reason to believe they did not, such figures should be statistically significant, certainly not just opinion and clearly not simply mine. I'm simply providing numbers offered by the hobby's number one publication. Why would MR choose tp publish invalid figures?
As to precisely how MR has gone about conducting their surveys over five decades, that question can only be properly answered by MR. However, having been a successful, profit making, business for three quarters of a century, I seriously doubt the methods they employed in their surveys were bogus, or resulted in inaccurate figures. You have to appreciate that model railroading is not some immense pursuit involving millions of people. The numbers are really relatively small and it should not be difficult to obtain a representative sampling of the group.
One simply can't write off such published figures presented by a respected magazine without presenting facts that demonstrate that they are erroneous. Do you know for a fact that MR's methodology was faulty? Can you show that their hobbyist sampling wasn't large enough? As I pointed out up-stream, situations aren't untrue simply because one chooses to say that they are. It has to be clearly demonstrated.
challenger3980 CNJ831 wrote: Incidentally, HO became the dominant scale all the way back in 1942 and has maintained a consistant 65%+/- segment of the hobby ever since the early 1950's. CNJ831 I would question your dates on this statement. I am the first to admit that wikipedia can at times be less than accurate, but their information, to borrow your phrase, Echos other things that I have read in the past. HO started in England in the 1930's, and became POPULAR in the US, during the 1950's and STARTED to surpass O-Gauge in Popularity in the Early 1960's. Your statement that HO became the DOMINANT(emphasis mine) scale all the way back in 1942, is the only place that I have read that HO's domination of the hobby started that early, and contradicts everything else that I have read, in that regard Doug
Doug, here are the figures published by MR for percentage of hobbyists by year and scale:
_______ O ____HO____OO
1936 58% 36% 2%
1938 49 37 11
1940 38 46 14
1942 31 54 14
1947 28 59 9
1949 22 69 2
(source: MR March 1950)
Just where in the world did you find a published indication that HO did not become the dominant scale before the early1960's?
CNJ831 Back in the 1940's and 50's Lionel, Flyer, Marx, et al. "modeler railroaders" were probably 98%-99% kids. Adults in the scale hobby at the time wished to totally disengage themselves from the appearance of grown men playing with their children's toy trains. Even today very few serious modelers regard their expensive scale models, or layouts, as toys. The logical path was to regard "tinplate" and scale trains as two distinctly different hobbies. Nearly all of Lionel's locomotives and much of their rolling stock wasn't only out of scale/proportion but often even of different semi-scales from item to item (Flyer was much closer to "scale"). The adult market wanted only items that were in perfect 1/87 or 1/160th scale and proportion. This was an understandable point of separation. To a significant degree, much of this situation still exists today. Without question, the majority of guys in may be regarded as "O" today are Lionel enthusiasts, who replicate toy train layouts they recall, or dreamed of having, in their youth. To be sure, there are factions of Hi-Railers among them who are modeling at a level that would place them on a par with the best HO or N layouts but they represent a very small minority.
Back in the 1940's and 50's Lionel, Flyer, Marx, et al. "modeler railroaders" were probably 98%-99% kids. Adults in the scale hobby at the time wished to totally disengage themselves from the appearance of grown men playing with their children's toy trains. Even today very few serious modelers regard their expensive scale models, or layouts, as toys. The logical path was to regard "tinplate" and scale trains as two distinctly different hobbies. Nearly all of Lionel's locomotives and much of their rolling stock wasn't only out of scale/proportion but often even of different semi-scales from item to item (Flyer was much closer to "scale"). The adult market wanted only items that were in perfect 1/87 or 1/160th scale and proportion. This was an understandable point of separation.
To a significant degree, much of this situation still exists today. Without question, the majority of guys in may be regarded as "O" today are Lionel enthusiasts, who replicate toy train layouts they recall, or dreamed of having, in their youth. To be sure, there are factions of Hi-Railers among them who are modeling at a level that would place them on a par with the best HO or N layouts but they represent a very small minority.
The question, in my mind had always centered around how these categories came to be the controlling factor in these scenarios. What CNJ brought out is precisely why certain types of scales ended up with issues. Lionel, American Flyer as well as Marx, Ives etc--might as well bring them in this mess---really were not about scale representation in the first place. IIRC there were articles in various antique collector magazines from the 80's and such that pointed out the differences between the advertising to show how children were targeted by Lionel and others. So that, even today, the arguement over whether Lionel layouts were scale model or not is moot.At least to my eyes at any rate. If one took the "O" scale and analyzed the actual makeup based on what was said so far I'd say--yes the "O" scale might really be even smaller than thought.
CNJ831Unquestionably, the price and quality of many O-gauge three rail models today are the equal or better of HO brass. But again, owners of such trains have a very small representation in the hobby. And, of course, very expensive but toy-like Lionel models continue to be big sellers among a portion of adult hobbyists, making it difficult today to drop the longstand seperation that has existed for over five decades
When I talked to many of the people who I dealt with in my on/off avocation of antique collector/dealer, I did not see this idea that HO, O, S, N and all that are the same as, or equated to, Lionel, American Flyer or Marx etc, There was no need to. The assumption that there was a difference between the two did not turn into an debate as to whether the one was more, or less, important than the other. This was/is the norm for many of these collectors. So why there is a need for this debate is kind of puzzling.
My own remembrances of Lionel--having still my 2 sets I got( don't ask how--I'm not sure--)---are of the durability of the dang things. I had a bad habit of dropping them off tables and such. They were/are less likely to come apart iinto millipieces like HO brass lokes would. That is a difference that tends to get overlooked. There is a difference--one was more adapted to childrens fingers and such while the adult scaled HO brass was geared for adults. An early form of Ergonomics --MMM?
CNJ831,
I had never seen that chart, and I wont question it's validity, because I can't offer a citable source that contradicts it. I am 43, and have been a model railroader as far back as I can remember, an HO modeler for the majority of it. I have read many, many things during that time, I can not now quote/cite much of what I have read. That is the first that I have read that shows HO's poularity, that high that early.
FWIW, MR was a more balanced Multi-scale magazine in that era, from what I have read in issues from that time, so I would be more inclined to trust their figures from that era, as I would from the present time. I still consider current MR, to be essentially a 2 scale magazine as opposed to being a true multi-scale magazine, Kalmbach tends to route most of their coverage of larger scales to their magazines specific to those scales. I still think that HO&N Monthly would be a far more accurate title than MR.
CNJ831 challenger3980 CNJ831 wrote: Incidentally, HO became the dominant scale all the way back in 1942 and has maintained a consistant 65%+/- segment of the hobby ever since the early 1950's. CNJ831 I would question your dates on this statement. I am the first to admit that wikipedia can at times be less than accurate, but their information, to borrow your phrase, Echos other things that I have read in the past. HO started in England in the 1930's, and became POPULAR in the US, during the 1950's and STARTED to surpass O-Gauge in Popularity in the Early 1960's. Your statement that HO became the DOMINANT(emphasis mine) scale all the way back in 1942, is the only place that I have read that HO's domination of the hobby started that early, and contradicts everything else that I have read, in that regard Doug Doug, here are the figures published by MR for percentage of hobbyists by year and scale: _______ O ____HO____OO 1936 58% 36% 21% 1938 49 37 11 1940 38 46 14 1942 31 54 14 1947 28 59 9 1949 22 69 2 (source: MR March 1950) Just where in the world did you find a published indication that HO did not become the dominant scale before the early1960's? CNJ831
1936 58% 36% 21%
I guess that my understanding is more about an impression gained over the years. I'm not about to question data published in such an august publication as MR, but the data provided here Doug & CNJ831 has turned out to be a bit of an education and promoted a change in what I have always thought as being the case relating to O, HO and, OO.
My understanding was that O was the predominant pre-war scale in the US and that in the late pre-war period HO grew along similar lines as N did in the late 1960's - that is, allowing modelers to supposedly have twice as much layout in HO as they did in O. I had also believed that OO was a British gauge, but clearly from MR's survey's this is just not the case. Leading me to ask were there models of American prototype railroads being offered by US manufactuers in OO during the 1930's?
Clearly MR hobby activities were much different then than they are today - or even in several decades past. The history of these scales and the correction of my previous erroneous impressions would be interesting to learn should anybody want to improve my education in this matter.
Bruce
CNJ831 Doug, here are the figures published by MR for percentage of hobbyists by year and scale: _______ O ____HO____OO 1936 58% 36% 2% 1938 49 37 11 1940 38 46 14 1942 31 54 14 1947 28 59 9 1949 22 69 2 (source: MR March 1950) Just where in the world did you find a published indication that HO did not become the dominant scale before the early1960's? CNJ831
I like this--something to chew on!!
BTW--another way to show the difference is by examining collectors price guides for toys. You will not see any brass locomotives or rolling stock mentioned---different stuff altogether.
As for all MRR being toys--maybe different targets for marketing?
Just for fun I created this table from MR's online track plan database showing the number and percent of layouts.
It includes Great Model Railroads and Model Railroader for the last 10 years.
It may or may not be an accurate reflection of the spread but it's the only current factual data that I have access to.
Enjoy
Paul
------------
Sorry,but,I still maintain those surveys are not all that actuate..How many of us never seen one let alone filled one out?
Where are your facts? Remember my friend you ask me now I am asking you.
Can you show any proof those surveys done by MR and RMC is 100% actuate and speaks for the hobby or just a select few MR/RMC subscribers that took the time to fill out the survey and mail it back??
No more then I can.
So,its still your opinion you are posting-just like the rest of us.
The main reason HO became so popular was they sold engines for $ 10.00 and were plastic .... were in every 5 and 10 cent store .... even drug stores at xmas . They even had those styrofoam complete layouts ... tunnels -track and all for $29.99 . A big difference from diecast - smoking O scale lionels and others . If you handled the cars and engines too much all the rails and trim broke off .
Here's an idea. Since we are dismissing any and all written material as biased, out-dated, or of questionable credibility and/or variety of scales polled, (it would stand to reason the more of a scale you include, their percentage would.....?). Why not everyone go to their LHS's and ask them what they sell the most of and the approx percentages. This is a large, as we are from all parts of the world, grouping that would not be polling individual model railroaders of any particular scale, but the market as a whole. (as I understand it, that is where the figures really come from. I don't factually know this. I just recall the term manufacturers being used.) Then report back and do the math. Or, you could just look at the shelves and see what they stock the most of. Usually a store doesn't stock a lot of what they can't sell.
Personally I don't care. I like them all. HO I can see and fits well with what space I have. Plus, it is plentful in my area. Larger than HO I don't have enough room to do close to what I'd like, N would be my choice for the space and I could get more in the area, but is to small for me to deal with, and Z, well in person I'm not sure I could even see the stuff at all. My eyes, my choice. But I like your choice too.
EDIT: I intended to congratulate each and every one of you on the work that you do in whatever scale you choose. There is truly some outstanding workmanship Craftsmanship out there. And to thank you for participating in these Forums where you share your talents and encourage people like me to better my own layout.
BRAKIE One simply can't write off such published figures presented by a respected magazine without presenting facts that demonstrate that they are erroneous. Do you know for a fact that MR's methodology was faulty? Can you show that their hobbyist sampling wasn't large enough? As I pointed out up-stream, situations aren't untrue simply because one chooses to say that they are. It has to be clearly demonstrated. CNJ831 ------------ Sorry,but,I still maintain those surveys are not all that actuate..How many of us never seen one let alone filled one out? Where are your facts? Remember my friend you ask me now I am asking you. Can you show any proof those surveys done by MR and RMC is 100% actuate and speaks for the hobby or just a select few MR/RMC subscribers that took the time to fill out the survey and mail it back?? No more then I can. So,its still your opinion you are posting-just like the rest of us.
Brakie, do you understand than in any study one starts with the most reliable published data/information source available, typically that from the leader or most prominent entity in whatever field is under investigation and one works from there? In this case, that would be MR. They have something like 150,000 subscribers, probably accounting for better than 50% of all the individuals of any real significance as model railroaders in the hobby today (arguably it could be as much as 75%). When one conducts such statistical examinations for a business, it is not likely to be done in any haphazard or approximate fashion since the company's future depends on recognizing situations and trends. In fact, I would expect that currently Kalmbach likely employs an outside scientific firm to do such work. Likewise, this is first hand data that would probably not be available with better accuracy from any other source. If Kalmbach chooses to indicate the methods they employ, along with the probable errors in their figures, that's up to them, but there are no grounds that I can see for not accepting them at face value.
tatans When I think of "model Railroading" I only think of HO scale, even though I have an old o27 but not running. I guess it's because I'm running HO, A question : what percentage of model railroading is HO?? there is zz, n, HOn3, HO, 027, G, and I'm sure I missed some. Is HO that much ahead of any of the others?
When I think of "model Railroading" I only think of HO scale, even though I have an old o27 but not running. I guess it's because I'm running HO, A question : what percentage of model railroading is HO?? there is zz, n, HOn3, HO, 027, G, and I'm sure I missed some. Is HO that much ahead of any of the others?
Disregarding the entire scale/toy/percentage of participants/prices...
My definition:
Model Railroading is the practice of assembling a miniature representation of a railroad and operating it in a manner consistent with the practices of prototype railroads of similar era and class.
This can be done with hyper-precise scale models or with Lionel O27 track and trains - or even with little blocks of painted balsa on a 'layout' drawn in crayon on a sheet of cardboard.
As for the vast majority of the foregoing posts to this thread, Shakespeare had it right...
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - but not a fanatic about it)
CNJ831 BRAKIE One simply can't write off such published figures presented by a respected magazine without presenting facts that demonstrate that they are erroneous. Do you know for a fact that MR's methodology was faulty? Can you show that their hobbyist sampling wasn't large enough? As I pointed out up-stream, situations aren't untrue simply because one chooses to say that they are. It has to be clearly demonstrated. CNJ831 ------------ Sorry,but,I still maintain those surveys are not all that actuate..How many of us never seen one let alone filled one out? Where are your facts? Remember my friend you ask me now I am asking you. Can you show any proof those surveys done by MR and RMC is 100% actuate and speaks for the hobby or just a select few MR/RMC subscribers that took the time to fill out the survey and mail it back?? No more then I can. So,its still your opinion you are posting-just like the rest of us. Brakie, do you understand than in any study one starts with the most reliable published data/information source available, typically that from the leader or most prominent entity in whatever field is under investigation and one works from there? In this case, that would be MR. They have something like 150,000 subscribers, probably accounting for better than 50% of all the individuals of any real significance as model railroaders in the hobby today (arguably it could be as much as 75%). When one conducts such statistical examinations for a business, it is not likely to be done in any haphazard or approximate fashion since the company's future depends on recognizing situations and trends. In fact, I would expect that currently Kalmbach likely employs an outside scientific firm to do such work. Likewise, this is first hand data that would probably not be available with better accuracy from any other source. If Kalmbach chooses to indicate the methods they employ, along with the probable errors in their figures, that's up to them, but there are no grounds that I can see for not accepting them at face value. CNJ831
Twist it anyway you want but,I still see no proof..
Where is your proof?
pastorbob SpaceMouse CNJ, Why would O gauge be considered a different hobby. Certainly there are O gauge railroads with the same level of detail as HO if not more. And the modelers can operate their trains just as HO operators do. I'm curious. While I hate to presume for CNJ, O gauge Scale and Lionel O are two different animals. I dabbled early in O but saw early on I would probably never have the space to build what I wanted and the offerings for O scale were limited. I do have one O scale steam loco that I kept, and which graces a shelf in the train room, far away from wandering hands. Bob
SpaceMouse CNJ, Why would O gauge be considered a different hobby. Certainly there are O gauge railroads with the same level of detail as HO if not more. And the modelers can operate their trains just as HO operators do. I'm curious.
CNJ,
Why would O gauge be considered a different hobby. Certainly there are O gauge railroads with the same level of detail as HO if not more. And the modelers can operate their trains just as HO operators do.
I'm curious.
While I hate to presume for CNJ, O gauge Scale and Lionel O are two different animals. I dabbled early in O but saw early on I would probably never have the space to build what I wanted and the offerings for O scale were limited. I do have one O scale steam loco that I kept, and which graces a shelf in the train room, far away from wandering hands.
Bob
OK then....Is this a model railroad??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8__pRxVSyyw
I know it's hard for people to understand, but in recent years "hi-railers" have been building layouts that are true 1:48 scale, using the many full scale products made by Lionel MTH and others. Heck, Lionel now even sells scale couplers as a retrofit!! Except for the fact that it runs on three rails (which ALL O scale layouts did for many years, except some put the third rail on the outside) these layouts are NOT TOY TRAIN LAYOUTS!!
Thank You Stix,
That was a wonderful find, the vast majority of layouts in ANY scale, pale in comparison to that. That is a Perfect example of what a High-Rail layout can be.Unfortunately, I doubt that anything that I create will ever equal that, but it does set a very good standard to shoot for.
There was, in a class I took on statistics at UWO many moons ago, a fellow who said, and I'm quoting from my old notes I kept---
"There is no perfect system upon which one can design an unimpeachable survey. Every one of those surveys that were done had flaws. BUT--and this is key here--BUT, these surveys are, in fact, the only way that we can get at any SOCIAL DATA."
Again- UNLESS we have a detached observer from MARS do this type of survey some will never trust ANYTHING. This radical type of neo scepticism seems to hover around a kind of subjectivist ploy----
"I am the only one who/that is real--all about me is but mere shadow"---another type tends to float around the idea that they did not do the thing itself hence someone else did ---so they must be false----or summat.
This may just be the only way we'll really know---we may have to trust these publishing guys as there is still NOTHING I've found in any Dissertation Abstracts or what- have- you indicating otherwise.
As a professor I once argued with put it----"If you do not believe the results others got --DIY"
I think this endless attempt to judge others as having a layout (and by inference, being a model railroader) is pointless. Self certification is the way I go. If you think you have a layout, then you do. If you think you are a model railroader then you are. For a hobby that attracts less than 0.5 % of the population, we sure can get snooty.
For me, model railroading is having fun with trains whether that's recreating a railroad scene right down to the trash on the ground, shooting exploding boxcars with a missle launcher,or something in between.
Remember Gomez Adams? Now there was a guy who had fun with trains! We should all be so fortunate.
Here's a hard and fast fact. At my house, 100% of the model railroaders and layouts are N scale. Therefore, anyone who isn't working in N scale, is doing it wrong.
Just to make sure, I'm going to head up to the layout room to survey it again and run some trains instead of sitting here staring at the monitor and prosyletizing...
If you follow this methodology yourself, you'll quickly find that Model Railroading is indeed fun, and it matters not a lick what the other fellow is doing.... (even if it's wrong!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798 Here's a hard and fast fact. At my house, 100% of the model railroaders and layouts are N scale. Therefore, anyone who isn't working in N scale, is doing it wrong. Just to make sure, I'm going to head up to the layout room to survey it again and run some trains instead of sitting here staring at the monitor and prosyletizing... If you follow this methodology yourself, you'll quickly find that Model Railroading is indeed fun, and it matters not a lick what the other fellow is doing.... (even if it's wrong! Lee
Finish that off with ----So there--HHHAAAAARRRUUUMMPPHH!!!
Doug,
The most accurate would be sales. That would be the only source that would be believable.
Just a thought. None of us have enough information to say one way or the other.
Photobucket Albums:NPBL - 2008 The BeginningNPBL - 2009 Phase INPBL - 2010 Downtown
CNJ831 _______ O ____HO____OO 1936 58% 36% 2% 1938 49 37 11 1940 38 46 14 1942 31 54 14 1947 28 59 9 1949 22 69 2 (source: MR March 1950) CNJ831
These figures probably resulted from some kind of readership survey by MR so as to be able to identify the popularity of the scales by who is buying and reading MR in order to better understand their readership when it comes to writing articles of interest to their readers. If a MRR magazine readership is heavily weighted in one scale/gauge, then it would be sensible not to overload your magazine with articles of interest to people who modeled in less popular scales - the correct balance is important.
A careful and responsible editor would want to this so that his magazine reaches the greatest number of people - sustain their primary interest and to offer sufficient interest to modelers of less popular scales.
Survey's have become more scientific these days and it's all a matter of mathematics and clearly understood formulae.
In surveys such as the ones taken by MR over the above period, 1936 - 1949, it's the trend in results that is important that's why a simple readership survey like MR's is relevant for that time because it would have been interpreted against other data taken from other surveys - NMRA - as a latter example.
These surveys weren't carried out to trick anybody, but to gather information so as to provide a better focused magazine and to make sure the magazine was satisfying it's readership. If they got it all wrong they would be screwed! If all the survey question asked is the scale being modeled then it would be a very simple survey and one that would be helpful to the editors. If the survey included many of the other of MR's readers preferences, age, income, marital status, occupation and so forth, then that would be a very different thing altogether and not within the focus of what it seems their 1936 - 1949 survey was trying to determine.
A similar survey, should one have been undertaken, by the other general interest MRR magazine of the time, RMC, would probably have revealed similar results given the trends revealed in the MR survey - general trends that have continue today including scales they were not being modeled in the 1930's to the late 1940's A survey by one magazine would probably confirm the results of the other.
Public attitute, market, target group and personal preference reearch surveys and all the stupid questions they ask - I think it might be these that you are refering to Brakie, are a different thing altogether and they were a vary rare occurance back in the 1930's. When I joined the advertising industry in 1964 - as a very junior s++t kicker, in what turned out to be only a four year stay, market research surveys were only in their infancy. Now, no nobody will cross the road, let alone launch a new product without some survey company say it's cool to do so - that's why they demand the big dollars - don't you know
Bruce - trying to live a simple life without surveys and telephone poll's
Bruce,Actually a poll from 59 years ago does not impress me since the hobby has become one of many factions with specialized magazines and as we have read on this forum many no longer see MR as the magazine.We all know MR doesn't do much for the O Scaler,N Scaler,G Scaler,tinplater and other modeling groups nor does it do much to impress advance modelers regardless of scale.One doesn't need to look far to see these scale specific magazines.N Scale has 2 magazines..O Scale has 2.S Scale has one.There are others as well.
Now,if the readership of MR is mostly HO modelers the survey will overwhelmingly be HO..Now let a scale specific magazine run a survey then that scale would dominate.
And that's my point..Magazine polls isn't worth the paper committed to them.
Then how about us bi scalers or tri scalers?
Where do we fit in with these polls since most polls I seen in the past said chose one?