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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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
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
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?
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?
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/
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
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
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
Doug
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,
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.
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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, 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.
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
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.
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!
Thanks Doug, I will definately buy some 3 rail stuff then. Still saving up for my prr S1, can't wait to get those new weaver fleet of modernsim cars to go with it.
Hi Jake,
I pulled a bit of a brain fart, there and missed the circle bit. For a simple circle of 072 curves, or 36 inch radius, in scale terms, your main advantage ikn 3 rail would be detection fortrack and/or crossing signals. Track, locomotives and rolling stock would be more available in 3 rail. 3 rail cars and locomotives detailed to the same level as 2 rail are available, but likely wouldn't be tremendously less expensive than 2 rail versions.
Hi again Jake,
The disadvatages of O-Scale compared to O-Gauge are Scale typically requires curves about twice as wide for similar equipment, a smaller selection of equipment, and it tends to be more expensive. There are plenty of expensive locomotives in 3 Rail as well though, believe me, I know, I like them too much.
If You want to include reverse loops, or wyes in your track plans or have train activated accessories such as track signals or crossing gates/signals then 3 rail makes life and wiring much easier, to borrow a phrase from twhite, it makes it "easier by a factor of ridiculous"
I didn't get your message, I had sent you an email through the forum, but was unsure whether you got it or not, it didn't show in my sent list, and I was unable to find any record of it in my forum profile, where I can review PM's, so I didn't know if you got it or not.
Doug.
I have a question about O scale/O gauge. If I were to say operate a small O layout in a 15 x 15 room, should I stay with the third rail stuff, or should I try O scale 2 rail, is the third rail simply for complex layouts in a small area, or are there other disadvantages to going to 2 rail?
I don't know if my question makes any sense but basically I am wondering which is better for the purpose of a simple circle with 0-72 curves, should I just go 2 rail due to the lack of a need for reversal loops? Btw, Doug, I sent you a response to your pm a few weeks ago, I am not sure if you got it though.
My observation based on trains shows and hobby shops is that HO is most popular.
Next are O (in all it's forms) and N. I think they are about even, but O might have a slight edge.
Next is G in all it's scales.
Last are S (in all it's forms) and Z. I think S is more popular, and has more stuff available, but both are a small segment of the hobby.
All of these scales are well supported in that you can get track, turnouts, diesel and steam locomotives, rolling stock, structures, etc for any of them.
TT is possible, but supplies are very sketchy. At the moment I think you can get everything mentioned above, but most of it is small basement operations or European.
OO is popular in Britain, but American OO (which uses the correct track gauge) seems to have no commercial support unless you use On3 which has eactly the same gauge of .750".
I also think that scales other than HO are gaining in relative popularity. So while HO numbers may not be declining, I think the percentage is.
I don't think it matters much to argue about Scale vs Toy in O and S. Most of the products in S are offered in both Scale and HiRail. Many in O are also offered in both - a trend that seems to be increasing.
Hi Tom,
Have you been to the Western Depot? I believe that is in your neck of the woods. I have bought quite a bit from them out of their ads, flyers and ebay auctions. They seem to be a Great bunch there too, I have BS'ed quite awhile a time or two on the phone ordering from them.
Here in Portland, Whistle Stop near me is a Trains only shop, the usual selection in HO, plus an extensive selection in O-Gauge as well, the areas "Go To Place" for O. Tammies Hobbies in Beaverton is a full line Hobby shop, with plenty of HO, and is THE PLACE around here for Large Scale, with a very impressive selection.
Unfortunately Mainline trains in Forest Grove, where I will be moving to next month, after I get Married, is almost completely HO, plus some N, and less than 2 miles from where we will be living. I doubt that I will be able to create enough O demand on my own to make much of a difference.
O-Gauge does seem to be a bit more prevalent back east than it is here out West also. Charley, the owner of Whistle Stop has said though that O is growing in Popularity, and sales. At least they wont be too far out of the way, on my way home from work.
I didn't consider this an "Arguement" over scales, rather a discussion and I hope others see it the same way. But I don't consider MR to be much of a Multi scale mag, MRN(Model Railroad News) would be a much better example of a multi-scale magazine, but their circulation is much smaller, and there are probably many who have never heard of, or read MRN, especially the further East you go. They are Published not too far away from Kadee, here in Oregon, so Hopefully some day they will be as well known as Kadee is.
I don't know whether or not this helps at all in the argument over percentages of scales, but here in Northern California, there are two large, very well-stocked hobby shops devoted solely to trains in the Sacramento/Roseville area, and visiting each of them can give you a good idea of how popularity among scales breaks down, at least in this portion of the state (which contains a great many model railroaders, BTW).
For instance, Bruce's Trains here in Sacramento carries G, O, HO, N and Z trains and accessories. The first thing you're met with when you walk into the store is a rather generous selection of O Hi-Rail equipment from mfgrs. such as Lionel and Williams (and a neat operating layout opposite the checkout counter), then as you go down the main aisle, a large selection of HO. Along one wall is their G-guage selection (again, pretty generous), and toward the back, their N and Z (not as much, but pretty nice). Spend some time in the store and you see that about 50% of the store is devoted to HO--locos, rolling stock, accessories, but enough of the other scales (or gauges) is there to satisfy just about any railroad hobbyist.
When I visit Bruce's, I usually stay there quite a while, either shopping or shooting the bull with the employees (they're a great bunch, BTW), and it's interesting to see some of the purchases come through the counter--a large variance in scales, and not only just HO and N.
Railroad Hobbies in Roseville is much like Bruce's. Possibly not quite as big, but well stocked in all guages--maybe a little more 'concentrated' in their inventory, but again, the variance in guages represented is extremely complete--again, about 50% HO, but enough of other gauges to attract a lot of Northern California customers who model other scales. And again, observing the buying habits of customers lets me know that "If you stock it, they will come." I use both shops a lot. I'm in HO, but if I were in another scale, such as N or Z or even the various G-scales, I wouldn't be shopping in either store in vain.
And if I were into O Hi-Rail, between the two stores, I'd be in Hog Heaven.
So, I guess the point of all of this is that if you have a well-stocked MR shop in your area, we can all be happy campers. We're lucky here, in this particular area of California, we've got two, within about 10 miles of each other, and they attract people in this hobby all the way from the Oregon border to the Coast. There's a lot of us out here in Northern California, and we've all got our favorite gauge and scale.
challenger3980 The NMRA comes to mind as an unbiased source, have they ever done any studies on the break down of what scales people model in? Doug
The NMRA comes to mind as an unbiased source, have they ever done any studies on the break down of what scales people model in?
Doug, the unfortunate situation with these novice forums is that whenever any survey facts or statistics are present, if they don't agree with some poster's personal opinion of the situation, then they are branded as inaccurate, not representative, bias, or just plain wrong. These forums are the only place I've even encountered where published facts and figures are considered to be trumped by baseless personal opinion every time. Draw your own conclusions from that.
And, yes, the NMRA has conducted similar hobbyist surveys over the years and their percentages essentially echo what MR has found. However, I'm sure you'll quickly see a post following this one saying that the NMRA is an HO organization, so their figures are totally bias as well!
The real point to consider is that MR conducted surveys of its readership over a span of more than five decades. Throughout that time they were the premier (sometimes, except for RMC, the only) model railroading magazine and, since most modeling is not scale specific, there is no reason to believe that their readership was/is not representative of a general cross section of hobbyists. The niche magazines catering to specific scales, which have arisen in recent years have very small circulations, suggesting they've probably had little impact on MR's readership numbers. Thus, MR should have been and still be a good barometer of who is doing what regarding scale.
Something else to consider when figuring percentages of modelers in particular scales, how do you count the Multi-scalers like myself? Do you have totals that exceed 100%? I personally have Model railroad equipment in Large Scale (Commonly, and incorrectly all collectively refered to as "G" Scale) O-Gauge, HO and N scale, though I am much more active in the O-Gauge than the other 3 combined. Multi-scalers are probably more common than many realize.
I was not suggesting that Kalmbach would mis-represent the results in any way, just that if it was a poll conducted through MR magazine, the results would be different than those, that would have come from a poll in CTT, another Kalmbach publication. While MR has a generic sounding name, it does cater much more towards HO, and N scale, with the others pretty much a neglected after thought. I would not be the first to suggest Kalmbach change the name from MR to HO&N Monthly.
challenger3980 With any poll, you have to ask, WHO conducted it, WHAT was their purpose for conducting it, and WHO did they poll?
In any poll--especially those that are targeting a specific group of people there is always the question of who paid for it, who conducted it and their purpose. First of all, let us assume Kalmbach hired someone to do this survey, the purpose of which might have been to find out how the market was split between the various groups of modellers and how that might effect their marketing ploy, and, of course, they had to ask the subscribers---and a lot of them may (or not) have replied.
The problem here now is that we've become much more skeptical that, in a way, one is forced into asking---well then --WHO do you think should conduct this type of survey?
A detached observor from Mars perhaps?
I do think the answer though does tend to play around the 60-70% bracket for HO and roughly 25% for N with the rest barking at various levels. And, yes, the only real source for this information is/are MRR publishers both past and present. I have yet to see anything in Dissertation Abstracts that seems to indicate an academic study fell on our laps.
CNJ831 Essentially two-thirds of all model railroaders (which does not include Lionel, Flyer, Marx, et al. hobbyists as that is a separate hobby in itself) are in HO standard gauge (the vast majority), with a very small number in HO narrow gauge. N comprises around 25%-30% of the hobby and the rest total somewhat less than ten percent. If you doubt these figures, just look up the numbers reported by MR over the years. The percentages really haven't changed significantly in some years. CNJ831
Essentially two-thirds of all model railroaders (which does not include Lionel, Flyer, Marx, et al. hobbyists as that is a separate hobby in itself) are in HO standard gauge (the vast majority), with a very small number in HO narrow gauge. N comprises around 25%-30% of the hobby and the rest total somewhat less than ten percent. If you doubt these figures, just look up the numbers reported by MR over the years. The percentages really haven't changed significantly in some years.
I would be curious as to HOW MR came up with these numbers. If it was a poll of their readers, it would not be a very scientifically accurate source. But I would imagine that those numbers would be pretty accurate for MR's readers. MR caters mainly to HO and N scales, which I don't doubt are the largest percentage of the Hobby. But to say that all the others comprise less than 10%, I would like to see a more unbiased source supporting that number.
If I were to poll Classic Toy Trains(CTT) readers on what scales they model, I would guess the numbers would be approximately 70% either O-Gauge or O-Scale, 15% S, 5-8% Standard Gauge and all the rest the remaining small amount. Would that be any more accurate of a poll?
With any poll, you have to ask, WHO conducted it, WHAT was their purpose for conducting it, and WHO did they poll?
Figures can Lie, and Liars can Figure. Statistics can be made to say almost anything a particular person wants them to say.
I suspect N Scale could be has high as 30% from my observations and trackside chats...I also believe HO has lost ground over the past few years because of On30 and G scale.
Of course those that are privy to the facts and figures ain't tellin'..
So,the best we can do is speculate.