Sounds on-topicish to me, but I'm not the mod
I think you point out something that people often forget -- or don't know because so much of what is offered new now is full of so many features that weren't available 10, 20, 30, or 40 years or more ago. Vast improvements have been made, requiring investment in new technologies.
Many people nowadays also have come think think everything else in the world acts like the computers and devices you're reading this on right now. They always get cheaper and better every year, right? And the customer should expect that, right?
Actually, no, other hardware and things that aren't based largely on software depend on the sorts of continuing investments in technology, as well as the cost of labor, raw materials, and transportation, which are always going up. It's actually rather remarkable that we get amazingly better locos and rolling stock for only modestly higher prices. Yet people still complain because of a concept found in a word I used at the end of the last paragraph -- expectations.
They read those prices in old ads and see a new F-7 loco on the shelf for $219.95 w/ sound/DCC and they somehow expect that it should cost the same as that 1960 model...somehow it's at least $200 overpriced!
Come on, get real. You get so much more and the cost is relatively the same in real dollars/hours worked/whatever no point in splitting those hairs. But expecting something for nothing? Everyone knows that's unrealistic.
So please, be realistic.
After all, that's what the hobby's about, realistic expectations, too.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
While the "average" person making average wages(or the average person making mean wages) may feel that the loco is more expensive, it is not when wages for both periods are brought into the equation. This is based on the population as a whole, and date based on the population as a whole. I'm sure an unemployed worker would find almost anything related to model railroading difficult to buy regardless of time period. But the "average" person is better off today, having to work less hours to get a much better locomotive.
It's a matter of perception.
A lot of older modelers did it themselves from scratch from detailing, to scenicing materials.Today's modelers expect DCC, remote turnouts, lighting systems, detailed locos and rolling stock, custom roadbed, special ground foam or flock, detailed structures, certain wheels, certain paint (testors is expenssssive), certain couplers,....etc etc.
If you want the best of everything, yes it's going to cost you a pretty penny. $40->$100/sq foot is NOT unrealistic.
But you can be frugal too and do a lot of it yourself without buying a lot of the fancy stuff. Case in point, Woodland scenics lighting system...looks awesome. Looks easy to set up. Cost is gawd aweful when I can do the same thing myself for $0.50 per LED light.I find one of the best champions of this is "Broadway Lion" He does some awesome stuff on a shoestring budget. (Plus he has amusing post)
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
DigitalGriffinBut you can be frugal too and do a lot of it yourself without buying a lot of the fancy stuff.
Don,
Yeah, the "something for nothing" attitude applies not just to money, but time and effort. If you don't want to expend your time and effort on something, then how can you possibly believe that someone else will do it for you -- on the cheap?
Fundamentally, it's a hobby about doing and making stuff. If you want it done and made, that's gonna cost you.
As you noted, there are almost always cheaper workarounds that often take little monetary cost and only modest amounts of effort. Part of this hobby is figuring out what to spend your money on because you won't/can't do something and what to spend your effort on because you will/can do it. And if something sounds too expensive or skillfull, then it's time to take a crack about getting some skills. That process of discovery and learning is another big part of being a model railroader.
One thing I've noticed is that people seem to think the companies making our toys are ripping them off because of the high prices.I think a lot of the stuff we play with is way over priced,but I also concider a lot of it over detailed for something that going to be rolling down the rails of your favorite playground.
It seems that people forget that someone has to put those oh so easily broken details on that car or loco and they deserve a decent wage for doing it.I think I am just old fashioned because I like doing the detail work myself.That way I can pick and chose what I want to install.
floridaflyer While the "average" person making average wages(or the average person making mean wages) may feel that the loco is more expensive, it is not when wages for both periods are brought into the equation. This is based on the population as a whole, and date based on the population as a whole. I'm sure an unemployed worker would find almost anything related to model railroading difficult to buy regardless of time period. But the "average" person is better off today, having to work less hours to get a much better locomotive.
Yes, but to accurately answer the question, you need to know the the standard deviation too (I think that's the term). Having the "average" being the result of one large chunk of the population earning +/- $1 of the average wage makes the hobby more affordable to more people than if the "average" is the result of two big chunks of the population earning +/- $5 of the average wage. In the second case, the loco is priced too high for more people than in the first, but the "average" is the same.
But overall I agree. I think the standard product today is much better than what it used to be. It runs better and should last longer. The bottom end products of the past were poorly made and that low quality has been weeded out of the product lines, IMO.
- Douglas
"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference".
Do we need our own 12-step program?
It's time to show some wisdom and let this thread die.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Honestly, I have built (most) of my Cherokee Valley Railroad for about $230ish by using used, slightly damaged equipment, and kit bashing it together for what I want. That, and some great deals on some old sectional track from another road.
The thread was started by a moderator as a catch-all for all of the threads that ..ahem...complain about MSRP. In each of those threads, comparison of MSRP then and now always comes up, along with some sort of statistic. Usually there is an undertone that the hobbyist is getting ripped off now somehow.
Look, if people long for the 1970's $20-$35 locomotive, they are still available. Go to a train show and those products can be had for that price. A little work and they are as good as new...maybe even better if you know what you're doing. Rolling stock for $5. Nobody has to buy a $150 loco or a $25 boxcar to enjoy the hobby.
New products have moved on, but the old stuff is still around.
Doughless The thread was started by a moderator as a catch-all for all of the threads that ..ahem...complain about MSRP. In each of those threads, comparison of MSRP then and now always comes up, along with some sort of statistic. Usually there is an undertone that the hobbyist is getting ripped off now somehow. Look, if people long for the 1970's $20-$35 locomotive, they are still available. Go to a train show and those products can be had for that price. A little work and they are as good as new...maybe even better if you know what you're doing. Rolling stock for $5. Nobody has to buy a $150 loco or a $25 boxcar to enjoy the hobby. New products have moved on, but the old stuff is still around.
In the "good old days" most Model Railroad products were sold in retail hobby shops for the full MSRP (although there were some sales). Today it is relatively easy to find available products discounted; on-line, at Train Shows, and many hobby shops.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
I'd like to think the need for the thread we go away, but I think we have history working against that. It serves a purpose, because I think the lack of pushback against the idea of it being an expensive hobby is a problem, one that is every bit as important as worrying about getting the next generation interested in it.There's a lot of discussion in this thread that useful if you do believe it's too expensive. It's up to the individual to take that first step in using it to realize it's at least as much their own problem as it is the guy who's filling all those bottles you like a little too much for your own good, it seems...
A 12-step program for persistent price-whining might help, though...
mlehman I'd like to think the need for the thread we go away, but I think we have history working against that.
I'd like to think the need for the thread we go away, but I think we have history working against that.
Alton Junction
Forget inflation and the other measures. The reason for the seeming high cost is that selective compression is basically a thing of the past.
Previously, a modeler would run a 10 to 15 car freight with one powered engine and one or two dummies. A passenger model of the NCL or Empire builder, for instance, would be two engines and maybe five cars.
Over the last several years, replicating full trains, 100 car freights and full passenger consists have become more the norm. In the fifties large model layouts were small bed room sized. Most were either 4 X 8 or 5X9 table sized.
Today, the average seems to be multi-deck large basement sized- at least they are planned and give rational for buying the number of items that others have indicated.
In the past, the modeler seldom had many more trains than could run on the layout or fit in staging. Now, it is common to model time cycles which justify having several versions of a given train.
On top of this, the unique stuff is now purchased RTR or plug n play. This makes these items significantly more costly. In the past, the models were more basic and the extra's were expected to be added by the modeler. Yes, it took time to do that, but with generally smaller layouts, then the time was just part of it.
As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us". Our desires and expectations are a huge factor relative to the over all expense perspective.
Larry
www.llxlocomotives.com
So many trains, so little time,
ggnlars Forget inflation and the other measures. The reason for the seeming high cost is that selective compression is basically a thing of the past. Previously, a modeler would run a 10 to 15 car freight with one powered engine and one or two dummies. A passenger model of the NCL or Empire builder, for instance, would be two engines and maybe five cars. Over the last several years, replicating full trains, 100 car freights and full passenger consists have become more the norm. In the fifties large model layouts were small bed room sized. Most were either 4 X 8 or 5X9 table sized. Today, the average seems to be multi-deck large basement sized- at least they are planned and give rational for buying the number of items that others have indicated. In the past, the modeler seldom had many more trains than could run on the layout or fit in staging. Now, it is common to model time cycles which justify having several versions of a given train.
Rich
richhotrain ggnlars Forget inflation and the other measures. The reason for the seeming high cost is that selective compression is basically a thing of the past. Previously, a modeler would run a 10 to 15 car freight with one powered engine and one or two dummies. A passenger model of the NCL or Empire builder, for instance, would be two engines and maybe five cars. Over the last several years, replicating full trains, 100 car freights and full passenger consists have become more the norm. In the fifties large model layouts were small bed room sized. Most were either 4 X 8 or 5X9 table sized. Today, the average seems to be multi-deck large basement sized- at least they are planned and give rational for buying the number of items that others have indicated. In the past, the modeler seldom had many more trains than could run on the layout or fit in staging. Now, it is common to model time cycles which justify having several versions of a given train. From everything that I read on this forum and other forums, I doubt that is true. The vast majority of layouts seem to be pretty small in size. Rich
From everything that I read on this forum and other forums, I doubt that is true. The vast majority of layouts seem to be pretty small in size.
Rich,
I can only speak for this region and the modelers I know or who's homes I have been invited to for layout open houses - BUT, around here, layouts that fill most of a basement, typically 800 to 1600 sq ft of dedicated area, some larger, are rather common. And right behind that, many have layouts that are easily in the 400 to 800 sq ft range.
How many other modelers are their among us with smaller layouts I don't know about? I don't know.
But if I sat down and made a list, I could easily list 50-100 basement sized (or larger) private layouts within a 20 min. drive from my house - and thats the ones I know about, modelers who are social, belong to local groups, participate in regional open hose programs, etc.
Among the local group I am sometimes atcive in, there are 12 such layouts out of aproximately 25 reasonably active members.
My layout space is very "average" around here at about 900 sq ft.
Sheldon
PS - one more note about this - I have been amazed at the number of large layouts owned by "lone wolf" modelers that I have just stumbled across around here - guys who don't generally belong to groups or hold open houses, but have a basement (or garage) FULL of trains.........
I will stand by my observation that the majority of layouts seem to be small in size from everything I read. For those with larger layouts, I doubt that they are complaining about the hobby being so expensive.
Besides the lack of space to build a larger layout, I'll bet that the high cost of the hobby is what keeps so many layouts small.
Based on my unscientific observations, chronic complainers come in all sizes. In fact, in other forums where such are tolerated at length, many of the biggest complainers are fellows who insist they'd buy a dozen instead of a half-dozen if prices weren't so infernally high...
You just can't please everyone.
I also suspect that many of those folks would be unhappy even if they had every material thing they could possibly want to add to their layout. It's just so easy to pluck the low-hanging fruit of "we're being ripped off by high prices" if that's available to them.
Chronic unhappiness tends to go together with projecting its cause onto other things. Very seldom will people admit they're unhappy because, well, it's just me. Casting blame onto something else carefully avoids any sense of personal responsibility for how we think about the world, especially if how we think makes us chronically unhappy. Repeat ad infinitum.
It becomes the Dante's Inferno of model railroading, all of it circling the drain while they suffer.
If they tried building something, rather than trying to buy their way to happiness, they might find a way to break out of downward spiral. Strangely enough, that's also what this hobby is about.
My observation is that those who build rarely spend much time complaining about high prices. They don't have time on their hands, worrying about what they might be buying if everything wasn't so expensive.
So maybe that fits with the observations about large layouts just as well as smaller budgets correlate with smaller layouts. Those who bother building them are already happier, simply for doing that. My space is limited, but generous. My budget is infintesimal right now, but I can still build a lot on the cheap, supported by a pretty deep stock of stuff to do that and the imagination to make it happen. I'm happy, nonetheless.
Guys,Let us not forget the popularity growth of industrial switching layouts much like Lance Mindheim's books cover.
IMHO and based on forums,Layout Design groups and the current market I fully believe its quality over quantity and smaller layouts for modelers with average hobby budgets..
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Larry,
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that a small layout could not bring happiness. I'm absolutely sure you're right that ISL is a way to think about finding happiness on a budget, if need be or just for fun even if not. Size doesn't matter as much as attitude here, whether it's the available space, budget, or time. Having more of any of those three isn't a guarantee of happiness. Having a positive attitude does correlate pretty strongly with happiness, though, whatever the resources available.
Mike,I'm sorry.I didn't mean to imply anything of the sorts.
We was talking about this in chat room 4-5 months back and from the general talk MSRP played a large part in well,as one guy put it,trimming the fat of wants versus budget reality..
BRAKIEMSRP played a large part in well,as one guy put it,trimming the fat of wants versus budget reality..
Oh, nooooo!
He used the dreaded B-word
Budget!
Now, I'm not the kind to make a detailed budget then stick to every line of it. Rather I'm a make it fit and be patient sort. But there are two basic ways of lookingat a budget. Over a period of time, i.e., so much every week or month, is one way. Another way, especially if a smaller layout like a ISL is involved, would be to figure a total budget.
But you must think about it and consider, can I do this?
It's when someone says, "I want my dream empire..." without considering the cost that gets them in trouble. Yeah, if you didn't consider the cost, everything WILL seem too expensive, because as the 3 Stooges used to say, "Look at the fine mess you've gotten us into..."
Basically, someone has expectations, but hasn't done the math to support them.
Alternatively, someone goes through all that and then decided, "Prices are too high, because I could easily afford this if it was cheaper..." Well, of course, they could, but prices aren't. They're still "too high."
That's called "reality."
Better to conclude you've been a bit over optimistic in your planning and you adjust your expectations to better fit the available budget. ISL is one way to do that. Modules more generally also do that, because they're small enough to plan it all, too. The (in)famous 4x8 also shares that quality, but as we know, unwinding it around the room's walls can make a little go a lot farther. But in general I'd say you'll be happier with something smaller that you make substantial progress on completing than something bigger that keeps getting hit by budget freezes.
Mike, I agree complelely with your thoughts on why many of these price complainers are unhappy......
Since it is on topic as to the "cost" of ther hobby, I will repeat a few thoughts about "large" layouts.
Large does not automaticly mean more complex. In fact many of those I know with larger layouts did so to model more "in scale", with less selective compression, and thereby if you found some way to meassure "complexity per sq ft of layout" many would be less complex than a great number of smaller layouts - including Industrial Switching Layouts.
Many do want to run longer trains, have longer runs between "towns", have more "scenic vista" scenery.
Not every large layout is about packing in more track and turnouts..........in fact most are not about that at all.
Sure, running my 40 car trains requires more freight cars than someone running 15 car trains - BUT - my 20' long, eight track double ended yard uses the same number of turnouts as an eight track yard that is only 12' long - yes it does require 40% more track......
Big layouts are also often about large curves - mine are all 36" radius and larger.....
And I have two good sized ISL "areas" neatly intermingled with the multiple scale miles of double track mainline.......
What does it all cost? I don't keep track, but I don't keep track of what my wife spends on the grand kids or her shoes either.....
Somehow the both of us just know instictively what we can afford - because the bills are never bigger than the check book balance.....
richhotrain I will stand by my observation that the majority of layouts seem to be small in size from everything I read. For those with larger layouts, I doubt that they are complaining about the hobby being so expensive. Besides the lack of space to build a larger layout, I'll bet that the high cost of the hobby is what keeps so many layouts small. Rich
As I said, I cannot support or dispute that, just like we have no idea how many people are even in this hobby - but I have seen a lot of basement filling layouts in my time........
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain I will stand by my observation that the majority of layouts seem to be small in size from everything I read. For those with larger layouts, I doubt that they are complaining about the hobby being so expensive. Besides the lack of space to build a larger layout, I'll bet that the high cost of the hobby is what keeps so many layouts small. Rich As I said, I cannot support or dispute that, just like we have no idea how many people are even in this hobby - but I have seen a lot of basement filling layouts in my time........ Sheldon
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain I will stand by my observation that the majority of layouts seem to be small in size from everything I read. For those with larger layouts, I doubt that they are complaining about the hobby being so expensive. Besides the lack of space to build a larger layout, I'll bet that the high cost of the hobby is what keeps so many layouts small. Rich As I said, I cannot support or dispute that, just like we have no idea how many people are even in this hobby - but I have seen a lot of basement filling layouts in my time........ Sheldon So, based upon that observation, have you concluded that the majority of layouts are basement filling layouts? Rich
So, based upon that observation, have you concluded that the majority of layouts are basement filling layouts?
Rich, maybe not a "majority", but I suspect it is a significant percentage - 30%?
Some of the "small layout" crowd on here acts like layouts bigger than a spare room are one in thousand - I don't think so - more like 1 in 3, 1 in 4? At least it seems that way around here.
Agreed! Mine is a 3'x7', HO scale railroad "museum" in East Tennessee, complete with locomotive terminal, and has a hand built 4-4-0 of British importation, a "PRR H-9 2-8-0" (loosely), lettered for the Cherokee Valley, a narrow gauged "TARDIS" (so named for its blue color) with a 0-4-0T wheel arrangement, a few BR engines, a pair of ATSF F-3's, a CNW F-7, and a CV 2-8-4. All of this is operated near the eastern terminus of the Cawdor Southern, which adopted the BR logo for use with its SD-40 after the upper management lost a bet. And yet it all fits onto a 3'x7' base. This has little scenery at the moment, but by going under the table for most of the equipment, it is among the least expensive pikes I've seen down here in the South.
mlehmanBetter to conclude you've been a bit over optimistic in your planning and you adjust your expectations to better fit the available budget.
Mike,I call that champaign taste with a beer pocketbook.
ATLANTIC CENTRALSome of the "small layout" crowd on here acts like layouts bigger than a spare room are one in thousand - I don't think so - more like 1 in 3, 1 in 4? At least it seems that way around here. Sheldon
Sheldon,I would not be surprised if that figure isn't more like 1 in 10 judging by what I hear and read in chat rooms,forums and layout sig groups. Of course these seem to be your average Joe modelers that has a limited budget instead of having knee or maybe ankle deep pockets for their hobby budget.
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Some of the "small layout" crowd on here acts like layouts bigger than a spare room are one in thousand - I don't think so - more like 1 in 3, 1 in 4? At least it seems that way around here. Sheldon Sheldon,I would not be surprised if that figure isn't more like 1 in 10 judging by what I hear and read in chat rooms,forums and layout sig groups. Of course these seem to be your average Joe modelers that has a limited budget instead of having knee or maybe ankle deep pockets for their hobby budget.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Some of the "small layout" crowd on here acts like layouts bigger than a spare room are one in thousand - I don't think so - more like 1 in 3, 1 in 4? At least it seems that way around here. Sheldon
I would say a least 1 in 10, and even at that, that is a lot of big layouts.
Everyone I know with a big layout, did not build them "overnight". Most took a decade or more to reach some sense of "completion". So the money spent might not be much different from the guy with a "spare room" layout who has rebuilt three times....
Some people have the personality for long term goals.........some don't.
It's not just about the money, it's about the focus and persistence.
And, admittedly, I live in area with lots of modelers, if NMRA memberships are any indication, And, an area where nearly EVERY single family home, even modest priced ones, has a basement. In fact, it is more likely that a modest home here will have an unfinished or semi finished basement just waiting for a model layout to fill it up.
RR_Mel I paid less than $7 for my first HO locomotive kit in 1952 from my local hobby shop in El Paso Texas. It’s an MDC Roundhouse 0-6-0 and it still runs perfect! Mel