I have seen a number of posts and articles about the lack of interest in modeling railroading among those under the age of 50 (or 60, or 100). I was thinking about this as I drove past a train while in Oakland. As I passed it, I thought, "Oh, intermodal. Bummer." That got me to thinking, could this be part of the reason for the lack of interest? To me, a train has a variety of cars. I remember, as a kid, watching the boxcars, the tankers, the livestock cars. The variety made it interesting--a bunch of giant metal boxes full of Chinese merchandise, not so much.
Note: The intent of this thread is not to devovle into a discussion of the state of the "younger generation." It is intended only as an observation about variety in trains.
Richard
Richard,
You have to remember, Intermodal is the new name given to ''piggy back'' starting in the 50's when there were no containers. Back then, they were mixed with pure freight trains, so it would depend on the era you want to model.
40's,50's era ''Piggy Back'' Trailers on Flat Car,(TOFC) in todays terms:
Frank
I doubt it. Those younger who don't remember railroading when most merchandise went in box cars instead of containers won't have the "ho-hum" attitude towards an intermodal train. If they are modellers, there's a good chance they will model this modern era. The era they know. Even as they grow older, I'll bet a good number will still model this (early 21st century) era. For them, these will eventually be the "good old days" that they will remember.
Besides, for those of a certain age, it's probably more than just intermodal trains that affect interests. (Many of those trains have containers from different sources offering a variety of colors and sizes.) There's a certain sameness along the main routes of the class ones. (Not too mention all the class ones that have disappeared over the years.) While there are still manifest trains, often they are dominated by covered hoppers and tank cars. Many trains are unit trains like coal, grain, autos, ethanol etc. Motive power is pretty well standardized around a few model types. I think it probably affects railfanning more than modelling.
That's one advantage modellers have over those that don't. We can turn back the clock to our individual "good old days." While many would disagree with my time period, for me it's the late 1970s. Even though back then were the dark days of railroading (and my version of 1978 is a lot better than what things were like) it's when I came of age, railroad wise.
Jeff
Intermodal are also more expensive than box cars, hoppers, covered hoppers, gondolas, etc. To model what you now mostly see on RRs today is more expensive than the rolling stock in the old days.
Richard,90% of the NS trains I see here and in Fostoria is general freight,unit trains and the other 10% is intermodal.
I still see lots of boxcars in those general freight trains-in fact NS and CSX handles more boxcars then intermodal.
Check the performance reports.
http://www.railroadpm.org/Performance%20Reports/NS.aspx
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I'm pretty certain intermodal has affected interest in model railroading -- positively. Why?
First, I am not an intermodal or present day modeler, so don't have an axe to grind in terms of personal appeal. But present day modeling has taken a noticeable upswing since I was a kid. There's a lot more contemporary stuff on the market that someone is buying. It also fits well with the substantial interest in railfanning, something facilitated by the 'net, cell phones, and digital media in general.
As for them kids in the hobby, I wouldn't worry about them too much. They're all on social media or whatever kids do these days. In fact, I think it's many of them who've created the growth in contemporary modeling. They just don't spend a lot of time hanging in old school media like this forum, paper editions of magazines, etc. While I've also noticed this is a perrenial worry of those over 50 in this hobby since I started as a teenager, now that I'm well past 50, the contirnuing existence of the hobby tells me there's a big helping of "chicken little" to most of that.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehmanWhile I've also noticed this is a perrenial worry of those over 50 in this hobby since I started as a teenager, now that I'm well past 50, the contirnuing existence of the hobby tells me there's a big helping of "chicken little" to most of that.
Mike,I'm 66 and been hearing the young is not interested in trains since the 60s..Just about everything was going to doom the hobby,starting with the slot cars of the 60s,video games of the 80s,computers,D&D etc,etc.
Perhaps some needs to go trackside or train shows to see younger faces?
RideOnRoadI was thinking about this as I drove past a train while in Oakland. As I passed it, I thought, "Oh, intermodal. Bummer."
Even as a kid the boring box cars that were all over the place weren't so boring because they all had names of interesting places or far away railroads on them. We just to watch the build dates to find the oldest car in the train. Now there are Chinese symbols or corporate shipping name on the "boxes" that are meaningless and uninteresting.
Since then (about 4 years ago) I have found there is still a varity of freight cars out there on merchandise or manifest trains. It is just harder to find them. The cars are interesting even if they are much larger than they used to be. I-beam flats, zillions of different tank styles and covered hopper styles, refers, box, auto-racks. I have put together enough stuff to field one "modern" train. But it is still not enough to suck me into modeling the "modern" era, especially if I wasn't already interested in the trains.
I think people like to model what they see, and are most impressionable in the teens, twenties and thirties (my guess from personal experience and observation).
I got to see some D&RGW in the 80's which included a variety such as mixed freight, TOFC and unit coal trains (including those lothesome [to some] bathtub and hi-side gondola coal cars. Fortunately for those of us who saw those 80's coal trains and want to model them, Athearn has upgraded the MDC bathtub and hi-side gons and sold them in some common unit train markings. But I digress.
I don't think intermodal has lessened interest in model railroading except maybe for those who were in their prime before intermodal got big. I use myself as an example, my prime was 70's and 80's, and a bit into the 90's. What came after my prime was wide cabs, ditch lights, graffiti, conspicuity stripes, and awful looking painted out freight cars. I have lost interest in railfanning over how I used to be and now enjoy the hobby through watching video's, reading books and internet photo's, and modeling trains before all that became common place. It's a generational thing. So I expect those who are in their prime of train watching, teens through 30's, are probably big intermodal fans.
BTW, I'm an intermodal fan too because intermodal was very popular in the 80's, especially the 2nd half of the 80's when spine cars, Twin Stack articulated well cars, Thrall articulated well cars, Front Runners, and the ubiquitous 89' TOFC flat car were very common. To that end I have build up a sizable fleet appropriate for 80's time frame because intermodal will very much be a part of my layout, along with the Piggy Packer and Mi-Jack crane etc.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I turn 55 tomorrow and I love intermodel trains.
If my layout was larger than 12x12 I would run more of it on my layout.
23, and model the PRR. Nothing against those who model the modern era, I just perfer the challenge of modeling the 1950's, but I do admit something. Yes I have an NS GP35, a Conrail Gp38, and possibly soon a NS SD40-2...all for running a modern "local" train.
(My Model Railroad, My Rules)
These are the opinions of an under 35 , from the east end of, and modeling, the same section of the Wheeling and Lake Erie railway. As well as a freelanced road (Austinville and Dynamite City railroad).
zstripe Richard, You have to remember, Intermodal is the new name given to ''piggy back'' starting in the 50's when there were no containers. Back then, they were mixed with pure freight trains, so it would depend on the era you want to model. 40's,50's era ''Piggy Back'' Trailers on Flat Car,(TOFC) in todays terms: Frank
My 75th birthday is history, and I DON'T find stacks boring. Quite the opposite. Now, the wheeled platforms may be boring, but there's a remarkable lack of uniformity in the boxes themselves. And not all of them are filled with, "Products from China." The 48 and 53 footers you see on the 'second level' are domestic - they don't fit the slots in oceangoing containerships.
So, do I model stacks? No. While an occasional standard container might show up as a flatcar load, the catenary precludes double stacks. I do run JNR standard container cars (five containers on a 20 meter long dedicated carrier) because that service had already gotten a start in 1964.
We all model what we like, and see interest in what we want to find interesting. Mine is no secret, and I'm quite willing to bet that it isn't shared by many on this side of the Pacific. (All the plain and fancy paint jobs on self-propelled diesel generators bore me to tears...)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - without a single diesel-electric)
Rrebell,
Oh for sure, I agree, I was basing my reply on my experience on what I saw and grew up with in the Chicago area, not very unusual to see, many railroads and what they run, I didn't read what I experienced in a book. My Modeling passion, Trucks & Trains, not Trains & Trucks. Got my first truck ride in an old 1932 LaMoone, in 1946 My Dad driving after the War, I was four (4), my love of trucks, was born.
Take Care!
RideOnRoad I was thinking about this as I drove past a train while in Oakland. As I passed it, I thought, "Oh, intermodal. Bummer."
I was thinking about this as I drove past a train while in Oakland. As I passed it, I thought, "Oh, intermodal. Bummer."
I've lived in Oakland most of my life. And I've been fascinated with intermodal most of that time--almost as long as I've been interested in trains.
So, I don't say "bummer".
Ed
I don't model the intermodel era, but I do alot of railfanning/railphotography in California, mostly on or around Donner Pass. Intermodel trains are not that boring, and the stack trains themselves are propably the most colorful and visually interesting trains you can photograph. Some of my best photographs are of stack trains. If I was modeling todays intermodel, it would be relatively easy to lightly weather a couple containers here or there, then randomly load them on the cars.
RideOnRoadNote: The intent of this thread is not to devovle into a discussion of the state of the "younger generation." It is intended only as an observation about variety in trains
As far as variety goes, has anyone seen trains with just a few container cars along with mixed freight, or are they all unit trains?
I am also curious if they all originate or terminate at large facilities, such as ports or large trucking terminals. Or are there much smaller facilities that deal with a handful of cars?
This discussion has got me thinking about these things.
Eric
I think this depends on your perspective. Individual rolling stock is neat, but I'm not there for the rolling stock, i'm there for the train as a whole, for the feel of the ground shaking, the sounds, and all of that. In terms of modeling trains, I attempt to show what is there. For example, I model New Jersey electrified lines, which all feature commuter trains. Some would find those Arrow MUs boring and repetitive, but then you couldn't really make a model of something like the NEC without them. The same goes for intermodal, which is a major moneymaking operation on the railroad. I'm currently trying to figure out what classes of flat car I would need to make a "Trailvan" TOFC train for my layout. These were hot-shot freight trains running on near passenger speeds up the NEC, so I would argue they are far from boring!
pav As far as variety goes, has anyone seen trains with just a few container cars along with mixed freight, or are they all unit trains? I am also curious if they all originate or terminate at large facilities, such as ports or large trucking terminals. Or are there much smaller facilities that deal with a handful of cars? This discussion has got me thinking about these things. Eric
Modeling Conrail, Amtrak and NJ DOT under the wires in New Jersey, July 1979.
zstripe My Modeling passion, Trucks & Trains, not Trains & Trucks.
Frank,That's another thing I like about Industrial Switching Layouts(ISL) one needs trucks in order to have a believable ISL regardless of size.
I prefer Trucks N Stuff's trucks-not cheap but,well worth the cash since they are detailed and comes in several well known truck lines like Knight,Con-Way,CFI,Landstar,Swift and of course the orange pumpkins-Schneider.
I use Boley box trucks for the smaller deliverly trucks.
What i like about a modern intermodal train is the trucking company names you see that the owners used to say it will be a cold day in hades before you see our trailers on a train.
Russell
Quote:
Depending on what part of the country you lived in, although not commonplace. Common carrier Truck Lines used the Railroads basically for overloaded trailers. It was more cost effective for them to ship it by rail, than to spend the man hours required to unload or reload an overweight trailer. Unlike the Railroads Trucks had a weight limit to be able to travel on the Highways, length, width and weight. It was in direct relation to a term called,''Bridge Law'' each State had their own laws. Railroads had no weight limits, only what the cars could handle. If the train was too heavy, they would just add more power. Trucks could not do that. Truck Lines didn't like it either, because they lost money, but they still had to satisfy the customers they hauled for.
As far as the Intermodal Trains. A lot of people don't realize, what they are actually seeing, is a Warehouse on wheels, or in 53'ft containers. No large manufacturer warehouse's any more. No room for one, plus it's not cost effective, to store goods in a warehouse, collecting dust, no money in that. Closings of LHS is in direct relation to that, can't afford to tie up space and money for something that sits on a shelf, until one out of ten customers want it. Atlas track is a good example. Some of the overseas containers that are shipped, Atlas probably don't even see. They go directly to the distributors, that pre-ordered.
Automotive assembly plants are one great example of warehouse on wheels. When I owned my own trucks I delivered many tire loads, to Ford, GM, all of the country in domestic 48ft containers. The plant had only a four hour window for tire loads, if I was not there with a tire load within that window, they would have to shut the line down. That is the last thing that goes on the vehicle in a assembly plant, been there seen it.
Been in Transportation My whole life. Started in 1959, I was 18yrs old. Have been retarded (retired) 14yrs this NOV and Transportation of goods has evolved extremely fast.
I dont think so. So some of us dont like seeing intermodal run by...so what....there are still unit grain trains and mixed freight out there. I like modern modeling myself bc its what i know and what i see but based on what one models, they might not need an intermodel for a modern railroad (insert almost all shortlines and branches out there for the CL1).
But i do agree with you....intermodal trains dont excite me hahaha. Credit observed loss in modelers and the decline of the LHS to the internet stores and online information sharing.
My layout in the making, the Keg Harbor R.R. & Nav. Co., is a narrow gauge line situated on the coast of Maine. The era is set in the early 1930, during the Prohibition. It does have a sort of intermodal traffic - the containers being kegs filled with illegal beverages "imported" from Canada.
I have repeatedly read in this forum that one models what one sees. I wouldn´t necessarily sign off that statement. Most of us older farts model the trains of our youth, i.e. transition era, which still seems to be the most attractive era to model. Younger folks are attracted to the hobby when their parents give them a Thomas The Tank Engine set, which is certainly far from representing the trains of today. For modeling purposes, trains = steam or early Diesels still seems to be the predominant equation.
IMHO, to model present day intermodal train traffic may be less attractive, unless you like watching long unit trains snaking through scenery. Operating these trains tends to be rather boring, from intermodal yard to intermodal yard only. No more local trains stopping at each station, setting out cars, picking up others. No more complicated switching moves giving us headaches. Where´s the fun?
I'm in my early 40s. I still remember boxcars and the like. I model modern era (always have, I like the challenge of modeling what I see), and I think intermodal is cool.
I live in Southern California, where Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach traffic dominates. So, a LOT of UP and BNSF intermodal. Whenever I see a stack train roll by the railroad crossing, I roll my car windows down and think things like, "I should buy more Evergreen containers..." :)
Think of it this way: The era of the "Big Four" railroads means less variety in terms of road names, but the container shipping companies are the new road names -- sea names, actually.
I think Intermodal is fascinating, actually, these metal boxes you'd find on a train in your city can wind up on a truck or in a locading dock in some other country in a few months.
And no, they're not all from China, or even Asia. Maersk, CMA-CGM and MSC, for example, are European sea names. If you learn more about the world of intermodal/logistics shipping companies, you'll have a better idea where things come from or are destined for. You'll know which shipping companies are based in which country. Plus, there's a lot of leasing companies who provide containers. There's also domestic containers, the 53-footers, and many of them are in the paint scheme of joint-railroad pools, like UMAX (UP & CSX), EMP (UP & NS), etc. Get to know how intermodal actually works and it won't be ho-hum at all. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of bitter old guy groaning about the world that's alwas been better 'back then.'
pavI am also curious if they all originate or terminate at large facilities, such as ports or large trucking terminals. Or are there much smaller facilities that deal with a handful of cars?
Yes,there are satellite yards that handle small blocks of intermodal cars..These are usually switched by intermodal trains or if business warrants a short intermodal train will originate and terminate at these yards.These yards are located near industrialized areas and offers the shipper a alternative route like (say) BNSF over UP..This is the other side of intermodal railroading that is little known to most modelers.
As for your second question.Yes,I have seen loaded stack cars in freight trains.I've also seen some autopart boxcars tact on the rear of intermodal trains
Sir Madog less attractive, unless you like watching long unit trains snaking through scenery. Operating these trains tends to be rather boring, from intermodal yard to intermodal yard only. No more local trains stopping at each station, setting out cars, picking up others. No more complicated switching moves giving us headaches.
Not so fast there.
Intermodal trains do en-route switching at smaller satellite yards and they also drop and pick up cars at division junction points.
Larry, Thank You very much for the info. It gets me thinking about the modeling potential for a small layout.
FWIW, the Chicago Great Western and the New Haven both had "modern" TOFC service in 1937. The NH, in fact, was the No. 1 TOFC RR in the USA until SP got into the act in 1953.
As for "boring, ho-hum" consists, folks should really go back and watch old steam-era films in color. You will see that the vast majority of freight trains were made of oxide red boxcars with white lettering. Lots and lots of same-ness. Trainload after trainload. At least container trains of today's era have a lot of color on them (not that I model them).
Paul A. Cutler III
Paul3As for "boring, ho-hum" consists, folks should really go back and watch old steam-era films in color. You will see that the vast majority of freight trains were made of oxide red boxcars with white lettering.