I have one LHS that is within a reasonable driving distance. He carries a lot more than just trains to make his business work, and it appears to be thriving. Not as big a selection of trains as Georges, but he's more flexible in pricing. Was in there not too long ago with my son, the owner pops out with a box full of older used trains and hands them to my son. FREE. You don't get that online. He ended up with 3 useable Athearn passengers as well as 3 useable cabooses.
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
riogrande5761 Doughless Jim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then. I prefer to call them observations rather than concerns. What is past is past, and I'm not really concerned about it. I say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then because, well, what choice did we have? It's the same about many other things. I have intended no value judgements to my posts like "criticize" or "concern"; those are things I'm not saying or feeling. Words mean things so I've been fairly deliberate in the words I've been using to avoid any misunderstanding but alas... /shall we put a fork in it? I'll even give you the last word and say no more. Aren't I nice? Cheers!
Doughless Jim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then.
I prefer to call them observations rather than concerns. What is past is past, and I'm not really concerned about it. I say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then because, well, what choice did we have? It's the same about many other things. I have intended no value judgements to my posts like "criticize" or "concern"; those are things I'm not saying or feeling. Words mean things so I've been fairly deliberate in the words I've been using to avoid any misunderstanding but alas...
/shall we put a fork in it? I'll even give you the last word and say no more. Aren't I nice? Cheers!
I think the back and forth took longer than it had to because you keep assuming your concerns about the lack of prototype fidelity in models are shared by the consumer as a whole, even the consumer back in the day. Since you choose your words deliberately, I assume after 4 responses, its intentional. I would just finish by saying that producers always meet demand and the customers as a whole don't accept anything. Its the individual that has to.
- Douglas
I think the culture back then was to for a modeler to buy a generic model, then detail or modify it to meet their specific needs to the degree they needed to look exactly like their prototype. Therefore, they were likely very happy with what was being produced.
Or, more likely, do without. You wanted an SP Trainmaster? You were SOL unless you can find a brass one. Even then, it probably was at best a foobie. Santa Fe steam? Unless you could be satisfied with Bachmann's offering of the 3776/2900 class 4-8-4, your choice was brass or nada (unless you were willing to scratchbuild). We settled for generic models not because we were happy about it, but because there really was no alternative. We settled for the Athearn Blue Box F7 because no one was making one with correct nose, roof and windshield contours, let alone prototypically correct details for any particular railroad.
That actually makes much more sense than what we are doing today...paying high dollars for manufacturers to make a specific prototypically accurate model...
High dollars as compared to what? The last steam engine I bought was Athearn's SP MT-4 with the skyline casing, 160C-2 tender, multiple bearing crosshead guide and disc main driver. The great thing is that Athearn has several variations of the MT-4 that actually existed, with different crosshead guide/main driver/tender variations including those that were repainted for use on the "San Joaquin Daylight".
The MSRP on the MT-4 (with sound and DCC and the detail variations that ring my chimes) is $420. Sounds like a lot, until I run it through the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator and look back 50 years when the choice was brass or nothing. Lo and behold, the equivalent price in 1967 would have been $58.45, or slightly less than it would have cost for an undecorated brass MT-4 without sound/DCC and without a choice of detail variations. The great thing is, I didn't pay $420 for it, but $320 ( $44.53 in 1967 dollars). IOW, on an inflation adjusted basis, the engine I bought is not only cheaper than an "equivalent" model of 50 years ago, it is far more feature rich. Don't want sound/DCC? MB Klein will sell the identical model I bought, but without the sound and DCC for $240, or the equivalent of $33.40 in 1967 currency (that's down into Mantua territory on a comparative basis) and it's almost half the price that you would have paid for an equivalent brass engine 50 years ago (and which didn't have detail options). So tell me again how outrageously expensive things are for highly detailed models today, especially for those of us unwilling to settle for generic.
Andre
DoughlessJim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then.
I prefer to call them observations rather than concerns. What is past is past, and I'm not really concerned about it. I say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then because, well, what choice did we have? It's the same about many other things. I have intended no value judgements to my posts like "criticize" or "concern"; those are things I'm not saying or feeling. Words mean things so I've been fairly deliberate in neutral words I've been using to avoid any misunderstanding but alas...maybe I was unsuccessful.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 Doughless, no criticism in my analysis. Just how it was. The lack of trains I saw every day was simply a function of it wasn't economical to make them - I already stated why (cost of tooling up more than a small number of models not being economically feasible). It was what it was. Did I like it? No but I like most back then I accepted things as they were. As you mentioned, we were relatively happy with what we got. Heck, I remember in high school having to type papers on old type writers and was "happy enough" about it. But once I went to text editors and word processors some years later, it's hard to imagine going back to those days. Thats a bit like how I feel about the hobby. Them were the days but look what we have now! We have the old, the new and everything inbetween. Golden age - ride the wave!
Doughless, no criticism in my analysis. Just how it was. The lack of trains I saw every day was simply a function of it wasn't economical to make them - I already stated why (cost of tooling up more than a small number of models not being economically feasible). It was what it was. Did I like it? No but I like most back then I accepted things as they were. As you mentioned, we were relatively happy with what we got.
Heck, I remember in high school having to type papers on old type writers and was "happy enough" about it. But once I went to text editors and word processors some years later, it's hard to imagine going back to those days. Thats a bit like how I feel about the hobby. Them were the days but look what we have now! We have the old, the new and everything inbetween. Golden age - ride the wave!
Jim, I guess what I'm noticing is you apply your personal concerns about the products to the modeling consumer as a whole, that they shared your point of view. You say the consumer had to accept things the way they were back then.
Maybe its semantics, but I would say they demanded things to be the way they were..not accepted them..And were very happy because they got what they cared about.
Now, some aren't so happy because they have to pay for things they don't care about.
Maybe that's why the hobby is dying..they simply stopped participating.
Jim, the whole gist of my response to you was that I thought you were criticizing manufacturers for making products back in the 70s and 80s that didn't look like the trains you saw every day....as if the consumer demanded something dramatically different and had to settle for what was being produced.
That actually makes much more sense than what we are doing today...paying high dollars for manufacturers to make a specific prototypically accurate model...railroad after railroad after railroad... which is nearly impossible to do at an affordable price....which also creats a problem figuring out how many of what particular model to make, or stock in the case of an LHS.
Doughless Jim, I've been in the hobby about 40 years and I am totally aware of the facts you bring up. Many people saw the "errors" but didn't care, and still don't. Some stand out more than others too. My original question remains. Why did MDC make a boxcar that doesn't look like any one boxcar but is more of a generic car,
Jim, I've been in the hobby about 40 years and I am totally aware of the facts you bring up. Many people saw the "errors" but didn't care, and still don't. Some stand out more than others too.
My original question remains. Why did MDC make a boxcar that doesn't look like any one boxcar but is more of a generic car,
Doughless, I saw questions being asked and gave my best "in a nut shell" answer. Apologies, I didn't know if you had been in the hobby a few years or many.
As to the MDC generic box car question, I would like to know too, but my guess is we may never know - it may very well be that those in charge of those decisions are no longer alive - so probably it's moot.
Regarding the SD45, my "only" observation about it was that it was fat at the time and of course I learned years later why. Other than that, the basic model looked like a real SD45 to me at age 14.
They are either meeting our demand, or they are producing what they want in spite of consumer demand and we have to settle for more expensive, but unneccessarily accurate, products.
It makes no economic sense to produce products despite consumer demand; if consumers didn't want those items, then they wouldn't buy them and model train companies would slow production down. So as long as they continue to be produced, it's a good assumption they are filling a demand. I can't speak to whether people are buying unwillingly but that sure doesn't make sense to me.
Back in the day, "research" might well be going down to the nearest yard or siding and taking a few measurements. Problem is that the locomotive or boxcar might have been a one off - rebuilt from a wreck, homegrown, modified from the original, etc.
But it looked railroady. Besides, even if you faithfully copied a Sante Fe boxcar, it's probably not correct to decorate it for the PRR or NYC or several others. But you do it to sell more boxcars.
Personally, I'm more interested in the overall effect than spending a lot of money for a museum quality, 100% correct model.
Paul
riogrande5761 Doughless I'm not sure I agree about some of this. When the term "not looking like" was used, I didn't think you were talking about fine details like grab irons, stirrups, ladders, paint color, etc. That's right, I am not talking about fine details here, I'm talking about whole models when I discussed this - I'll repeat for clarity: As for generic freight cars which do not appear to be replica's of any real freight car, a number of the old Model Die Casting (Roundhouse) freight cars have been described by many over the years as not matching any real freight car There are a number of MDC freight cars from the earlier days which have been discussed over the years by modelers who have tried to discover what prototype they were copied from and it has been agree'd upon and there is a consensus that a number of those models are "generic" and don't match any real (for example) box car in general body style: sides/doors/roof/side sills etc. I have done some looking but I haven't done an exhaustive study of Accurail freight cars, but I have wondered if a number of them actually matched a real box car (most of Accurails kits are box cars) or if many of them are generic also. Whether or not a generic model is a good thing or not, is totally up to the hobbyist. As pointed out above, back in the olden days of 60's, 70's and 80's, we were generally happy with what we got. As for wide body diesels like those made by Athearn, as a 14 year old I could see something didn't look right about that SD45' I got for Christmas - the nose and long hood looked fat. I understand many years later the history behind the fat body Athearns and am glad they are a thing of the past.
Doughless I'm not sure I agree about some of this. When the term "not looking like" was used, I didn't think you were talking about fine details like grab irons, stirrups, ladders, paint color, etc.
As for generic freight cars which do not appear to be replica's of any real freight car, a number of the old Model Die Casting (Roundhouse) freight cars have been described by many over the years as not matching any real freight car
My original question remains. Why did MDC make a boxcar that doesn't look like any one boxcar but is more of a generic car, or an Athearn SD45 that didn't look like one? Sure, technology issues like a fat motor can cause unavoidable dimensional errors in the older designed locomotives. But a boxcar? An SD45?
They were built to look like that because that's the way the manufacturer chose to make them look.
I assume that any compromises made towards generic models were done so because that's where the broader based consumer demand was leading them, not because that's what the companies wanted to produce in spite of consumer demand.
But whatever was being produced for whatever reason then, could be the case now. They are either meeting our demand, or they are producing what they want in spite of consumer demand and we have to settle for more expensive, but unneccessarily accurate, products.
I see no reason to go to a hobby shop. There are a few in my area but when I can buy it cheaper online with a better selection There is no need to get in my car, using gas, fighting traffic to visit a hobby shop.
Besides I can sit on my favorite chair and shop for the items I want and in a few days they show up at the front door. Easy!
rrebell Last hobby shop of any size and helpful died over 30 years ago and I live in a very populated area, about 8 million. Still two hobby shops around of size but both owners can be unplesant (is that diplomatic enough).
Last hobby shop of any size and helpful died over 30 years ago and I live in a very populated area, about 8 million. Still two hobby shops around of size but both owners can be unplesant (is that diplomatic enough).
According to wiki based on a 2014 census estimate, the greater Washington DC metropolitan area has an estimated total population of 6,097,684 (making it the sixth-largest metropolitan area in the country and largest metropolitan area in the Census Bureau's Southeast region.)
At least on the west side of DC, I haven't found a "decent" train shop with a good selection of HO now in past 7 years. There was one shop I would have returned to to patronize down on the south-west side of the beltway that closed-up about 5 years ago. There are around 3 others that I am aware of that have only a tiny smattering of HO (one is big into large scale). I'm not into having them order stuff for me when I can do that myself and keep my costs a bit more in control.
The only LHS (if you want to call it that) I walk into now and buy stuff from is MB Klein, when I am in the neighborhood for the Timonium train show which is a mile or two away (which is next weekend BTW).
Like it or not, we are now largely in the age of online buying and model trains are no exception. As much as we hear the (post of the week) message lamenting the loss of hobby shops, it's part of the re-alignment of most genre's to modern day commerce model.
Doughless I think it was that the buying public just didn't care about prototype fidelity...per road name....that much. Why that is is anybody's guess.
Way back then the buying public was just happy that the stuff was being made.
riogrande5761 Doughless These comments beg a question. If manufacturers didn't make models that looked like the prototype, what were they making....and why did they make cars and locomotives look the way they did? Probably most models back in the 1960's through 1980's were made to look like a particular piece of real rolling stock but since the cost of making molds was a high cost endevor in a low money world so variety of model types was limited and model train companies painted those few models for all manner of railroads than never owned them. By way of example, Athearn tooled an offset cupola plastic caboose of the Santa Fe RR and painted it for many other railroads that never owned it. Same with the later wide vision caboose - Athearn tooled it after a Rock Island wide vision caboose which was built on old box car frames, so it really is correct only for a particular series of Rock Island caboose but has been painted for umpteen other RR's. As for generic freight cars which do not appear to be replica's of any real freight car, a number of the old Model Die Casting (Roundhouse) freight cars have been described by many over the years as not matching any real freight car - there are a number of box cars which I challenge you to find a photo of a real box car that matches. Same for some other MDC freight cars like one or more of the tank cars, although one of them is fairly close, alledgedly, to one type. Why did MDC do that? I'd like to know too as it makes no sense and has been a source of annoyance to many over the years. They can tool a model to look perfect...or not....Why did they choose not too? Another easy answer - in a single word, cost. As technology has improved and we have laser scanners and computer aided designe and fancy CNC machines, it's gotten easier and easier to tool a model thats closer to perfection than ever, although it's still a costly process to create tooling. The problem with reaching perfection is this pesky thing called human error, which tends to creep in here and there still and rail fans let the manufacturers know about it. Maybe modelers demanded more generic items and not "accurate" products. I don't know, I'm asking. Why is there such a demand for prototype fidelity now compared to back in the day when it, apparently, wasn't so much of a concern? It's a fair question but I think I've addressed some of it. I think people back then probably did want accurate models, but the realized the times they were living etc. and because there was this thing called harsh reality, that they weren't going to get perfection or in most cases the only way they could start to approach perfection was to do research, and spend many long hours themselves on a model. Honestly, I doubt people "demanded" generic models, rather (as my wife's mother used to say) "you get what you are given". Now I recognize there are quite a few people these days who are happy enough with generic models like those produced by Athearn, Accurail etc. Many say often they are pleased as punch to have those - but I suspect cost is a big part of that acceptance and lets face it, it's cost has always been a big factor in this hobby so many don't want to spend 2 or 3 times, or more, the cost to get a freight car to that it looks like a real box car (for example) but rather they are willing to accept a box car that "looks like a typical box car" in a generic way, because it's cheap. Fair enough - everyone in the hobby ends up doing things on their own terms and their own budget.
Doughless These comments beg a question. If manufacturers didn't make models that looked like the prototype, what were they making....and why did they make cars and locomotives look the way they did?
These comments beg a question. If manufacturers didn't make models that looked like the prototype, what were they making....and why did they make cars and locomotives look the way they did?
Probably most models back in the 1960's through 1980's were made to look like a particular piece of real rolling stock but since the cost of making molds was a high cost endevor in a low money world so variety of model types was limited and model train companies painted those few models for all manner of railroads than never owned them.
By way of example, Athearn tooled an offset cupola plastic caboose of the Santa Fe RR and painted it for many other railroads that never owned it. Same with the later wide vision caboose - Athearn tooled it after a Rock Island wide vision caboose which was built on old box car frames, so it really is correct only for a particular series of Rock Island caboose but has been painted for umpteen other RR's.
As for generic freight cars which do not appear to be replica's of any real freight car, a number of the old Model Die Casting (Roundhouse) freight cars have been described by many over the years as not matching any real freight car - there are a number of box cars which I challenge you to find a photo of a real box car that matches. Same for some other MDC freight cars like one or more of the tank cars, although one of them is fairly close, alledgedly, to one type. Why did MDC do that? I'd like to know too as it makes no sense and has been a source of annoyance to many over the years.
They can tool a model to look perfect...or not....Why did they choose not too?
Another easy answer - in a single word, cost. As technology has improved and we have laser scanners and computer aided designe and fancy CNC machines, it's gotten easier and easier to tool a model thats closer to perfection than ever, although it's still a costly process to create tooling. The problem with reaching perfection is this pesky thing called human error, which tends to creep in here and there still and rail fans let the manufacturers know about it.
Maybe modelers demanded more generic items and not "accurate" products. I don't know, I'm asking. Why is there such a demand for prototype fidelity now compared to back in the day when it, apparently, wasn't so much of a concern?
It's a fair question but I think I've addressed some of it. I think people back then probably did want accurate models, but the realized the times they were living etc. and because there was this thing called harsh reality, that they weren't going to get perfection or in most cases the only way they could start to approach perfection was to do research, and spend many long hours themselves on a model.
Honestly, I doubt people "demanded" generic models, rather (as my wife's mother used to say) "you get what you are given". Now I recognize there are quite a few people these days who are happy enough with generic models like those produced by Athearn, Accurail etc.
Many say often they are pleased as punch to have those - but I suspect cost is a big part of that acceptance and lets face it, it's cost has always been a big factor in this hobby so many don't want to spend 2 or 3 times, or more, the cost to get a freight car to that it looks like a real box car (for example) but rather they are willing to accept a box car that "looks like a typical box car" in a generic way, because it's cheap. Fair enough - everyone in the hobby ends up doing things on their own terms and their own budget.
I'm not sure I agree about some of this. When the term "not looking like" was used, I didn't think you were talking about fine details like grab irons, stirrups, ladders, paint color, etc. Those items were available back then. The detail parts were metal aftermarket products the manufacturers chose not to apply, apparently due to lack of demand, but rather chose molded on details. Today, they choose to apply the parts.
When you said "not looking like", I assumed you meant the dimensions of the car were wrong, like Athearns attempt at a GP30, or their GP9 and GP35 having to accomodate the wide motor. Athearns old steel handrails applied by the modeler are not that far off from modern day Delrin handrails, which have gotten a bit thicker recently in order to prevent them from warping (which isn't realistic at all).
I don't think it was the inability of the manufacturers to get the dimensions correct, or the inability to get the color exactly correct, or the inability to apply metal details; I think it was that the buying public just didn't care about prototype fidelity...per road name....that much. Why that is is anybody's guess.
But if "you get what you are given", a person could say that concept applies to why boxcars cost $30 and not $10, and why locos MSRP for $150 and not $50. I wouldn't say that, but to say that the buying public back in the day wanted highly detailed models they could buy RTR....complete with differences based on prototype.....but didn't get them because the manufacturers wanted hobbyists to buy something else cuts both ways.
And here's the thing, true technological advancement doesn't add to the cost of hobby products that much. Model railroading doesn't drive any advancement in anything, so things like the crisp painting we have now compared to the blurry pad printing would have made its way down to the hobby world after the technology was well paid for by other industrial uses. Better painting wouldn't have added that much cost to a Blue Box car or locomotive.
Probably most models back in the 1960's through 1980's were made to look like a particular piece of real rolling stock but since the cost of making molds was a very expensive endeavour in a low money world, the variety of model types was extremely limited and model train companies painted those few models for all manner of railroads than never owned them. The result was, most of the models you might buy didn't actually match anything in the real world.
Another easy answer - in a single word, cost. I don't think one set out to make an imperfect model on purpose - that would be daft. It was a matter of cost and technology and back then, the cost to offer models close to perfection was too high and essentially technologically infeasable.
As technology has improved and we have laser scanners and computer aided design and other machines, it's gotten easier and easier to tool a model that is closer to perfection than ever, although it's still a costly process to create tooling. The problem with reaching perfection is this pesky thing called human error, which tends to creep in here and there still and rail fans let the manufacturers know about it. What is the old saying? To err is human,
It's a fair question but I think I've addressed some of it. I think people back then probably did want accurate models, but they realized the times they were living this thing called reality, that they weren't going to get perfection or in most cases. Back in those days, the only way they could start to approach on a model.
Honestly, I doubt back then people "demanded" generic models, rather (as my wife's mother used to say) "you get what you are given".
Now I recognize there are quite a few people these days who are happy enough with generic models like those produced by Athearn, Accurail etc. Many say often they are pleased as punch to have those. Part of the reason is thats what they grew up with and have had for years and have long accepted that standard from the olden days as "good enough". But I also suspect cost is a big part of that acceptance and lets face it, it's cost has always been a big factor in this hobby so many don't want to spend 2 or 3 times, or more, the cost to get a freight car to that it looks like a real box car (for example) but rather they are willing to accept a box car that "looks like a typical box car" in a generic way, because it's cheap. Fair enough - everyone in the hobby ends up doing things on their own terms and their own budget.
I'm old enough to remember when all the department stores set up the Lionel trains every Christmas to run in the toy department.
I also remember SS Kresge and Woolworth when they were refered to as "the dime store".
Time marches on. Resistance is futile.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
IRONROOSTERI suspect that tooling was relatively more expensive back in the day. So you picked one boxcar and made a bunch of those decorated for every road whether it was 100% accurate or not.
Today's tooling can cost up to $100,000 for one road specific detailed locomotive since you need various size short hoods and other specific detail.
In comparision a generic model cost less to make since one size fits all regardless how wrong it is--remember Athearn's Santa Fe caboose lettered for every road name they did a locomotive in? Then the same applied to the SP bay window caboose.Remember the PRR bay window caboose Athearn did?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
DoughlessThese comments beg a question. If manufacturers didn't make models that looked like the prototype, what were they making....and why did they make cars and locomotives look the way they did? They can tool a model to look perfect...or not....Why did they choose not too? Maybe modelers demanded more generic items and not "accurate" products. I don't know, I'm asking. Why is there such a demand for prototype fidelity now compared to back in the day when it, apparently, wasn't so much of a concern?
I suspect that tooling was relatively more expensive back in the day. So you picked one boxcar and made a bunch of those decorated for every road whether it was 100% accurate or not.
Also, these days there is a lot more information available. And it's easier to get with the internet. So we know how accurate the manufacturer is.
Third, the hobby press really pushes museum level modeling. Look at the layouts covered today versus 40 or 50 years ago.
The hobby has changed. There's a lot more stuff available, but that makes it hard for a hobby shop to stock it all. And retailing in general has changed. Mom and Pop stores (which most hobby shops were) are disappearing.
Between big box and the internet, the small shop can't compete. Unless it offers something that big box and internet don't. Something that customers wil pay for, which is usually specialty/unique merchandise. Sure, we all want great service and extras like clinics, but what we pay for are cheap prices.
riogrande5761 I have to say back when I lived in northern California and I saw trains go by, it sure is nice to be able to buy box cars that ACTUALLY look like those box cars, and engines that look like those engines, and cabooses, ditto. Before about 15 years ago, that largely wasn't possible. I don't know, maybe it isn't like that for east coast modelers? I remember them and what they had. But I still prefer today when I can buy an F-70-43 bulkhead flat car that was bread and butter for carrying lumber out of the Pacific northwest. I can think of example after example that just didn't exist back "in the day"
I have to say back when I lived in northern California and I saw trains go by, it sure is nice to be able to buy box cars that ACTUALLY look like those box cars, and engines that look like those engines, and cabooses, ditto. Before about 15 years ago, that largely wasn't possible. I don't know, maybe it isn't like that for east coast modelers?
I remember them and what they had. But I still prefer today when I can buy an F-70-43 bulkhead flat car that was bread and butter for carrying lumber out of the Pacific northwest. I can think of example after example that just didn't exist back "in the day"
Geared Steammaybe its cause we are in the sun belt
Sun? Sun? What sun? Oh you mean that orange thing up in the sky? I think I might have seen that today.
maxman BRAKIE Shoot! I forgot to mention I had to ride my Schwinn bike uphill in pouring down rain to get to my favorite LHS .Smile, Wink & Grin Was that uphill both ways, or just in one direction?
BRAKIE Shoot! I forgot to mention I had to ride my Schwinn bike uphill in pouring down rain to get to my favorite LHS .Smile, Wink & Grin
Was that uphill both ways, or just in one direction?
This hobby is so cold I got the sniffles.....
Had the greatest time ever at the narrow gauge show in Houston, have a great time in all the local shows I visit down here, but maybe its cause we are in the sun belt.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
ATLANTIC CENTRAL In my old guy view, it is better today in some ways, and worse in other ways.
In my old guy view, it is better today in some ways, and worse in other ways.
Worse in what ways? Detail parts are getting harder to find. Prices are quite high, although the hobby has never been cheap. What else is there?
And, since I am a self involved introvert, I'm not real invested one way or the other in that issue of other peoples ability or inability to build models.......I can, so I do.
Right and thats fine. But there are those who wish they could wave a magic wand and go back to 20-30 years ago, or more, and build everything. That's not a good thing for those who don't have time or skills to do what you do. It's easy for those who do, to wish for those days. For those who don't have the time or skills or both, they are glad for today.
But I'm not in the version of this hobby that requires that every freight car be a blueprint perfect RTR model that costs $50. I have few, but their existance does not define the hobby for me.
I have few, but their existance does not define the hobby for me.
It doesn't define the hobby for me either, but it does enhance it. I have to say back when I lived in northern California and I saw trains go by, it sure is nice to be able to buy box cars that ACTUALLY look like those box cars, and engines that look like those engines, and cabooses, ditto. Before about 15 years ago, that largely wasn't possible. I don't know, maybe it isn't like that for east coast modelers?
But the really great shops back in the day, were really cool places. Because it was all right there. Some of the best shops had incredable inventories.....you could actually touch them.... Sheldon
Sheldon
BRAKIE Jim,A photoshop enhanced photo of a perfect model may not match want you may end up with.
Jim,A photoshop enhanced photo of a perfect model may not match want you may end up with.
Larry, So you are saying what we are seeing in the photo's are not representative of what we are buying? Thats a bit cynical and it also might be accusing model makers of doing something dodgy.
You've read the complaints as same as I and know very few brands has escaped scrutiny of the modelers including some of the brands you named..I have no doubts the forth coming ST SD40-2 will catch some ire from the modelers.
Of course QAQC issues are always present, and then you can do what I'm doing today, returning a model for another. Sometimes you have to.
With today's preorders you may not see the model for 2-3 years or it may be canceled.
Lets see, with ExactRail, Moloco and Tangent, when the models are announced, they can be bought - no vaporware. Athearn's lead time from announcement to hobby shop is roughly 12 months. Those are my main sources.
Intermountain is a bit all over the map - with rolling stock its about a year, engines well ...
And for the record I was mail ordering long before the raise of the internet and when it arrived I readily accepted on line shopping due to a lack of a LHS.
And Jim my long time friend..Be careful who you call old folk because if memory serves you're not exactly a spring chicken yourself.
Careful? hah hah. I'm referring to the people who behave old. Nuff said.
riogrande5761 Look, I know the older generation misses the hobby shop yada yada, but the younger generation works with computers, tablets, smart phones and any company or business will tell you they put the lions share of their advertising money at the young fold between the ages of teens thru 30's. Thats where the major business is and that generation uses websites and buys on-line. And, older folks like me who have adapted also buy online. It's pretty much the way it's going to be as far as I can see.
Look, I know the older generation misses the hobby shop yada yada, but the younger generation works with computers, tablets, smart phones and any company or business will tell you they put the lions share of their advertising money at the young fold between the ages of teens thru 30's. Thats where the major business is and that generation uses websites and buys on-line. And, older folks like me who have adapted also buy online. It's pretty much the way it's going to be as far as I can see.
riogrande5761 BRAKIE Jim,As far as I a concern those was the good old days being a teenager raised in a railroad family and surrounded by 5 major railroads Railfanning is a TOTALLY different deal and duh, for sure I wish I could jump in a time machine and railfan 1970's! and around 15 hobby shops.. Ah yes, but what you could buy in those hobby shops, thats the rub vs. today! I stand by that one 100% Now where is my Staples Button. =P
BRAKIE Jim,As far as I a concern those was the good old days being a teenager raised in a railroad family and surrounded by 5 major railroads
Jim,As far as I a concern those was the good old days being a teenager raised in a railroad family and surrounded by 5 major railroads
Railfanning is a TOTALLY different deal and duh, for sure I wish I could jump in a time machine and railfan 1970's!
and around 15 hobby shops..
Ah yes, but what you could buy in those hobby shops, thats the rub vs. today! I stand by that one 100% Now where is my Staples Button. =P
"...for sure I wish I could jump in a time machine and railfan 1970's!"
I've thought that quite a few times in the last few weeks. I'd be one of the only railfanners who'd be more interested in the infrastructure (trackage, signage, industry bldgs., etc.) than the train.
BRAKIE olson185 Is there a reason a train store would not automize their ordering system for quick delivery of customer orders? Do free in-house 'how-to' workshops not have a positive impact? Is it too much to ask for a train store to have well-labelled display samples? Maybe. There was at one time you see, some of the bigger and better off shops did just that-except you called ahead and placed your. A monthly clinic was common and once or twice a year there was model contest. Then came the newer style of hobby shop owner that ended a lot of LHS traditions.
olson185 Is there a reason a train store would not automize their ordering system for quick delivery of customer orders? Do free in-house 'how-to' workshops not have a positive impact? Is it too much to ask for a train store to have well-labelled display samples? Maybe.
There was at one time you see, some of the bigger and better off shops did just that-except you called ahead and placed your.
A monthly clinic was common and once or twice a year there was model contest.
Then came the newer style of hobby shop owner that ended a lot of LHS traditions.
Thanks. I was wondering if any LHS's were known to conduct "how-to's". I didn't know if any train store had. I've know book/game stores to sponsor D&D, Magic The Gathering, or boardgame nights. Michael's Crafts, HD, and Lowe's conducts some sort of weekly workshop. If nothing else, it's one way to meet like-minded people while the store highlights some product they sell.