rrebell John-NYBW Enzoamps My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once. I think there are going to be fewer 12 year olds interested in model railroading than back then. No there are just as many 12 year olds interested in trains but the proublem is the population has doubled in that time so the percentage has dropped by 1/2.
John-NYBW Enzoamps My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once. I think there are going to be fewer 12 year olds interested in model railroading than back then.
Enzoamps My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once.
My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once.
I think there are going to be fewer 12 year olds interested in model railroading than back then.
No there are just as many 12 year olds interested in trains but the proublem is the population has doubled in that time so the percentage has dropped by 1/2.
First, we don't know the number of 12 year olds interested in trains then and now.
Second, if there are just as many 12 year olds interested in trains now as then in absolute numbers, but the percentage has dropped by 1/2 as the overall population has doubled, then the interest of 12 year olds has declined by 50%. So, there would not be as many 12 year olds now interested in trains as then. There would only be half as many.
Third, the overall U.S. population has doubled from 165,000,000 in 1953 to 330,000,000 in 2022. The percentage of 12 year olds has nearly doubled from then to now. There were approximately 2,266,000 12-year olds in 1953 compared to 4,266,000 in 2022.
Rich
Alton Junction
rrebell ATLANTIC CENTRAL rrebell Three feet veiwing, that is pretty far, most of my layout is to be veiwed at less than two feet and a lot of viewing is less than a foot. I think that you will find that 3' is pretty typical for larger layouts. How high is your layout? How deep is your scenery? Close up viewing is fine for small layouts, with shallow scenery, it does not work so well for large layouts that intend to depict mainline operations with 40-50 car trains. Track on my new layout will range in height from 40" to 50", and most scenic views will be at least 3' deep, some will be much deeper. Virtually all trackage will be in the front 30" but some "distant trains" will be visible 4-5 feet in the back ground in a few places. Three feet is only your arms length away. If the trackage is 45" from the floor, and 18" from the edge of the table, and I am walking along with my train with my wireless throttle, my eyes are going to be 36" from the train more or less most of the time. Especially if I am keeping my eyes on 40 cars which is about 20' long. Take a look again at my trackplan keeping in mind that the aisle in front of the yard is 4' wide for a sense of scale. I for one have no interest in building a layout with a higher viewing height - tried that once too, hated it like I hated the multi deck thing. Sheldon Fair question, new layout is in a 11x12 room but my old layout was over 15'x30' and a large dogbone. Both had arround a max two foot depth with anything deeper being hidden. Current layout is around 34" high, last was 36". I am only 5'6" so this is perfect for me in my desk chair or standing.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL rrebell Three feet veiwing, that is pretty far, most of my layout is to be veiwed at less than two feet and a lot of viewing is less than a foot. I think that you will find that 3' is pretty typical for larger layouts. How high is your layout? How deep is your scenery? Close up viewing is fine for small layouts, with shallow scenery, it does not work so well for large layouts that intend to depict mainline operations with 40-50 car trains. Track on my new layout will range in height from 40" to 50", and most scenic views will be at least 3' deep, some will be much deeper. Virtually all trackage will be in the front 30" but some "distant trains" will be visible 4-5 feet in the back ground in a few places. Three feet is only your arms length away. If the trackage is 45" from the floor, and 18" from the edge of the table, and I am walking along with my train with my wireless throttle, my eyes are going to be 36" from the train more or less most of the time. Especially if I am keeping my eyes on 40 cars which is about 20' long. Take a look again at my trackplan keeping in mind that the aisle in front of the yard is 4' wide for a sense of scale. I for one have no interest in building a layout with a higher viewing height - tried that once too, hated it like I hated the multi deck thing. Sheldon
rrebell Three feet veiwing, that is pretty far, most of my layout is to be veiwed at less than two feet and a lot of viewing is less than a foot.
Three feet veiwing, that is pretty far, most of my layout is to be veiwed at less than two feet and a lot of viewing is less than a foot.
I think that you will find that 3' is pretty typical for larger layouts.
How high is your layout? How deep is your scenery?
Close up viewing is fine for small layouts, with shallow scenery, it does not work so well for large layouts that intend to depict mainline operations with 40-50 car trains.
Track on my new layout will range in height from 40" to 50", and most scenic views will be at least 3' deep, some will be much deeper. Virtually all trackage will be in the front 30" but some "distant trains" will be visible 4-5 feet in the back ground in a few places.
Three feet is only your arms length away. If the trackage is 45" from the floor, and 18" from the edge of the table, and I am walking along with my train with my wireless throttle, my eyes are going to be 36" from the train more or less most of the time. Especially if I am keeping my eyes on 40 cars which is about 20' long.
Take a look again at my trackplan keeping in mind that the aisle in front of the yard is 4' wide for a sense of scale.
I for one have no interest in building a layout with a higher viewing height - tried that once too, hated it like I hated the multi deck thing.
Sheldon
Fair question, new layout is in a 11x12 room but my old layout was over 15'x30' and a large dogbone. Both had arround a max two foot depth with anything deeper being hidden. Current layout is around 34" high, last was 36". I am only 5'6" so this is perfect for me in my desk chair or standing.
OK, I get that, but I want to model more than just what is 90' feet from the tracks.
I am 6' tall, 45" is a good trackside view if I sit down and a good panoramic view standing.
Looking at my track plan, the open aisle behind the yard and passenger station, will actually be urban scenery liftouts covering that aisle so that scene will be from 5 to 11 feet deep.
Look, there is nothing wrong with smaller industrial switching based layouts, I am just interested in more than that.
Again, if you look at my plan, half the layout has the yard and industries up close to the edge for that purpose, the rest is eye candy for long trains at mainline speeds.
I like switching, but not enough for that to be the sole purpose of the layout.
15 x30 is a good size, but still only 1/3 of what I am building. Yet I will have many sq feet of scenery, with no tracks, no railroad related features, etc.
It the space I have, if used 2' deep benchwork and 30" curves, I could have 3 times the trackage, turnouts, railroad "features", etc - that is not the goal.
The goal is for a 50 car train to look realistic, as well as have prototypical operations, dramatic scenery and display operation.
rrebell John-NYBW Enzoamps My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once. Pick an imaginary item from 50 years ago, and versions of it sold for from $1 to $10. And now the same item ranges from $10 to $100. For argument sake call that about the same with inflation. Where I worry is that 50 years ago we could buy them for $1 to $10. But looking at advertising and magazine coverage, it appears today, the recent offerings mainly concentrate on the $40 to $100 part of the range. My inflation calculator tells me you have to go back to 1958 to find when the dollar was worth ten times what it is now. A 12 year old kid is not going to have it any harder today than 50 years ago because the average kid is going to have the same buying power now as back then. It's no harder or easier today to afford a layout now than 50 years ago. I think there are going to be fewer 12 year olds interested in model railroading than back then. That's because they have so many more things to occupy their free time, particularly electronics. I don't see that as good or bad. I really don't care if model railroading has become an old man's hobby because I am an old man (70). If there aren't many kids interested in the hobby, I see no reason to encourage them. Everyone has different interests and there is no reason somebody else's should be the same as mine regardless of age. No there are just as many 12 year olds interested in trains but the proublem is the population has doubled in that time so the percentage has dropped by 1/2.
John-NYBW Enzoamps My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once. Pick an imaginary item from 50 years ago, and versions of it sold for from $1 to $10. And now the same item ranges from $10 to $100. For argument sake call that about the same with inflation. Where I worry is that 50 years ago we could buy them for $1 to $10. But looking at advertising and magazine coverage, it appears today, the recent offerings mainly concentrate on the $40 to $100 part of the range. My inflation calculator tells me you have to go back to 1958 to find when the dollar was worth ten times what it is now. A 12 year old kid is not going to have it any harder today than 50 years ago because the average kid is going to have the same buying power now as back then. It's no harder or easier today to afford a layout now than 50 years ago. I think there are going to be fewer 12 year olds interested in model railroading than back then. That's because they have so many more things to occupy their free time, particularly electronics. I don't see that as good or bad. I really don't care if model railroading has become an old man's hobby because I am an old man (70). If there aren't many kids interested in the hobby, I see no reason to encourage them. Everyone has different interests and there is no reason somebody else's should be the same as mine regardless of age.
Enzoamps My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once. Pick an imaginary item from 50 years ago, and versions of it sold for from $1 to $10. And now the same item ranges from $10 to $100. For argument sake call that about the same with inflation. Where I worry is that 50 years ago we could buy them for $1 to $10. But looking at advertising and magazine coverage, it appears today, the recent offerings mainly concentrate on the $40 to $100 part of the range.
My concern is for that 12 year old kid like I was once. Pick an imaginary item from 50 years ago, and versions of it sold for from $1 to $10. And now the same item ranges from $10 to $100. For argument sake call that about the same with inflation. Where I worry is that 50 years ago we could buy them for $1 to $10. But looking at advertising and magazine coverage, it appears today, the recent offerings mainly concentrate on the $40 to $100 part of the range.
My inflation calculator tells me you have to go back to 1958 to find when the dollar was worth ten times what it is now. A 12 year old kid is not going to have it any harder today than 50 years ago because the average kid is going to have the same buying power now as back then. It's no harder or easier today to afford a layout now than 50 years ago.
I think there are going to be fewer 12 year olds interested in model railroading than back then. That's because they have so many more things to occupy their free time, particularly electronics. I don't see that as good or bad. I really don't care if model railroading has become an old man's hobby because I am an old man (70). If there aren't many kids interested in the hobby, I see no reason to encourage them. Everyone has different interests and there is no reason somebody else's should be the same as mine regardless of age.
When I was 12, 13, 14 (started working in the local hobby shop at 14), there were not many other kids I knew who where REALLY interested in model trains. We had a teen club for a while - 5 kids in a junior high school with 1500 students. At ages 15-18, in a high school of 3,000 (10th, 11th, 12thd grades) there might have been 8-10 that I knew.
I remenber working in the hobby shop (two different ones from age 14 to 24) that most of my train customers where men between 30 and 60.
Having a train set on a 4x8 at age 12 and loosing interest by age 15 was typical, and I suspect the lifetime percentage who returned to the hobby was less than 50%, maybe less than 25%.
That was in the 1970's......
Like John, I have no intention of trying to "save" todays youth from their video games. My grandson does have some interest in the new upcoming layout - we will see. But if not, that's fine.
riogrande5761You need to custom paint alot of models. So you also need good paint and decal skills, not something all of us can brag about or actually want to do.
Or... you can just fake your way through it, that works for me.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Because, at 270 feet away (3 foot HO viewing distance) it captures the look pretty well.
Because, at 270 feet away (3 foot HO viewing distance) it captures the look pretty well.
I'm another one of those where a 3 foot viewing distance wouldn't work. The main section of my railyard isn't even that deep! (A couple of hollow-core closet doors that are older than I am.) Then going to the right (west) the corner is maybe that deep at the far point but the next section again isn't that deep. It is a piece that is a half sheet of plywood the long way. (2' x 8') To the left (east) of the yard, there are a few places that meet the 3' rule but that's only because there's a lake that "blocks" getting closer for general viewing.
riogrande5761 Free lancing has never been something I wanted to do. One down side is you need something I have very little of what I have: hobby time. Because you need to custom paint alot of models. So you also need good paint and decal skills, not something all of us can brag about or actually want to do. But wonderfully, there are a lot of accurate models that we can enjoy these days so both bases are covered.
Free lancing has never been something I wanted to do. One down side is you need something I have very little of what I have: hobby time. Because you need to custom paint alot of models. So you also need good paint and decal skills, not something all of us can brag about or actually want to do.
But wonderfully, there are a lot of accurate models that we can enjoy these days so both bases are covered.
I do both protolancing and prototype modeling so I cover both worlds as well.
Between the protolanced and the prototypes, I have probably completely painted/lettered a fair percentage of them. (I'm actually painting two hoppers right now as part of almost 2 dozen projects.) Another segment have been renumbered to avoid duplicates. The other large percentage have been rebuilt/kitbashed to match prototypes (and some of those were from the "toy" model category - Mantua/Tyco and Bachmann). I also have a fleet of older MDC Thrall gondolas that I did some minor reworking to match a different prototype.
I manage to squeeze modeling time in as I find it, even if it's just painting a section of a model that needs it. May not get much accomplished but it is something.
John-NYBWIf there aren't many kids interested in the hobby, I see no reason to encourage them.
The only benefit of more young people in the hobby is the theory that more products will be available due to a wider audience.
I already have everything I need, and will be buying very little, so I would get no benefit, unless they all want to buy undecorated freight cars.
Almost all of my scenes are at least 3' deep but I keep most of my track within 18" of the aisle. The exception is my large classification yard which forces both mainline track and spurs near the backdrop. If I have to reach that track, that's what step stools are for. The base height for my layout is 48" and the mainline doesn't rise above 52". There is a section of the branchline which rises to 54" but the track is very close to the aisle in that section so it's an easy reach.
$100US maybe. My only two DCC locos, both new in box old stock, at a show that our club sponsored, cost me $200CAN each.
As early as the mid 50's, "dipped" paint schemes were starting to be the norm in the east.
riogrande5761 John-NYBW This is why I'm glad I'm a freelancer. Accurate is whatever I say it is. Generic models work just find for me, even those that are built for real railroads. If I can make up a whole different railroad going through fictional towns, it's not at all a stretch to have non-prototypical details. Free lancing has never been something I wanted to do. One down side is you need something I have very little of what I have: hobby time. Because you need to custom paint alot of models. So you also need good paint and decal skills, not something all of us can brag about or actually want to do. But wonderfully, there are a lot of accurate models that we can enjoy these days so both bases are covered.
John-NYBW This is why I'm glad I'm a freelancer. Accurate is whatever I say it is. Generic models work just find for me, even those that are built for real railroads. If I can make up a whole different railroad going through fictional towns, it's not at all a stretch to have non-prototypical details.
Painting is not an issue for me. Since most steamers were black, I can either go with undecorated or remove the lettering for other railroads and apply the decals. With the diesels, I settled on a basic black scheme with gold lettering. I've never learned how to use an airbrush so I just use basic flat black rattle can paint. Decaling is not my strong suit either but when you are applying white or gold lettering on a black finish, it's easy to achieve a good enough look.
A few of my diesels are relettered black and gold D&RGW locos which have a little gold trim and safety stripes in addition to the gold decal lettering. I envision my free lanced railroad to have just begun the process of dieselization a few years early so the diesel fleet is a small number of first generation diesels bought second hand from other railroads. SW7s, RS1s, RS3s, GP7s and F3s. It's all good enough.
Just to be clear, there all various types/degrees of "freelancing", and/or "protolancing".
Not all of which involve lettering a large fleet of equipment for a fictional roadname, or in Kevins case it involves lettering EVERY piece of equipment for fictional roadnames.
You can model the B&O, and stay reasonably accurate in the models you buy (avoiding things like old Athearn PA1's lettered B&O since the B&O never had any) but at same time saying this is "close enough" for a 1954 piggyback car:
And you can build a layout that captures the feel of Appalachia, or the Ohio Valley, or Western/Central Maryland with going OCD trying to model specific places or track arrangements. And you can use real town names or not.
And you can do all this without obsessing over which locos worked which sub-divisions, on exactly which day in 1954. Or without worring about exactly when which loco got repainted into which one of the three different paint schemes they had on various locos in a just a few year time span.
Most people, even lots of "serious modelers", don't know all this about every railroad and every era. In fact nobody knows everything about every railroad.
I know a lot about railroading east of the Mississippi in the 40's and 50's, and a fair amount about 1890 into the 40's. But as you expand the "search" geographicly, or forward in time, I get dumber and dumber. I admit it. The southwest in 2020, I'm clueless.....
So freelancing, or protolancing, can be a lot of different stuff to a lot of different people.
I respect those who are dedicated to building accurate layouts, I great many of my modeling friends and aquaintances are such modelers, and many are not.
The biggest single problem I see with being TOO picky, is limiting yourself to modeling subjects for which models and info are available.
My modeling goals involve a broad "overview" of the railroads and region I model, not a narrow up close micro view.
And I do like painting and decaling models......
The very happy proto/freelancer, still happy with all the models I have ever bought. So after 55 years, the cost of the hobby is not much of an issue for me.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Yes, me too. I model my fictional ATLANTIC CENTRAL and the B&O, C&O, and WESTERN MARYLAND. I like accuracy within reason, but I am more about the "big picture" not every detail on every piece of equipment. It is about creating the "flavor" of the real thing - not every rivet. But this modern wave of high detail equipment has raised rivet counting to a new level. And I have had this conversation on here many time with RioGrande and others. I don't do stuff that is obviously out of place. I will take perfect when it is available and not cost prohibitive. But I'm not replacing 50 years worth of modeling for a few inches or a few rivets. And in my case, modeling 1954, there is a TON of stuff that has not yet been in made in some "perfect" high end piece of RTR. Nobody has yet to make many of the passemger cars the B&O converted from heavyweights into smooth side cars in plastic or brass, just as an example. I'm very happy with "close enough". Having said that, I don't have BigBoys lettered ATLANTIC CENTRAL - no east coast road would have ever bought one...... I have a 140 piece loco roster - purchased at a dollar cost average of $110 each.... Disclaimer - no DCC or sound - don't need that extra cost either. Sheldon
Yes, me too. I model my fictional ATLANTIC CENTRAL and the B&O, C&O, and WESTERN MARYLAND.
I like accuracy within reason, but I am more about the "big picture" not every detail on every piece of equipment. It is about creating the "flavor" of the real thing - not every rivet.
But this modern wave of high detail equipment has raised rivet counting to a new level.
And I have had this conversation on here many time with RioGrande and others. I don't do stuff that is obviously out of place. I will take perfect when it is available and not cost prohibitive.
But I'm not replacing 50 years worth of modeling for a few inches or a few rivets.
And in my case, modeling 1954, there is a TON of stuff that has not yet been in made in some "perfect" high end piece of RTR.
Nobody has yet to make many of the passemger cars the B&O converted from heavyweights into smooth side cars in plastic or brass, just as an example.
I'm very happy with "close enough".
Having said that, I don't have BigBoys lettered ATLANTIC CENTRAL - no east coast road would have ever bought one......
I have a 140 piece loco roster - purchased at a dollar cost average of $110 each.... Disclaimer - no DCC or sound - don't need that extra cost either. Sheldon
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
southernpacificgs4"Model trains cost an arm and a leg".
Well, I suppose that some of them do, but if that were the case for me, I'd still be trying how to figure out a way to run an electric wheelchair down the stairs to the layout room (or back up to the bathroom), especially if the tongue-operated electric motor switch (both arms would have been long-gone) wasn't functioning properly.
I started out in HO at age 9, with a 4'x8' layout, built mostly by my father, and I added to it when I had money to do so...usually structures and details, and occasionally a freight car or two.
Later, after dropping-out of model trains in my teens, I re-started the hobby and bought cheaper stuff... some of it was from Athearn and Model Die Casting, some Tyco, some John English, and also some stuff which might nowadays be considered junk. I also bought off the "used" table at hobbyshops, picking up damaged locos and cars, some poorly built kits, and other ones with missing parts.
Through trial and error, I learned how to fix locomotives, then learned how to detail them (and rolling stock, too).
I also learned how to scratchbuild structures and rolling stock, then learned how to paint professionally (never made much from that, mainly because I was unaware of what I should have been charging). I still paint (and letter) pretty-well all of my train-related stuff, and still do custom painting for friends, usually for the cost of the paint and lettering. I also re-detail them to suit the owner's requests.
I have, in the past, bought a few "high quality" (and high-priced) items, but usually only as undecorated kits. I have a few brass locomotives, usually unpainted or poorly painted, and often damaged or not running well...if the price was right, I knew that I was capable of making it better.
I've been retired now for over a couple of decades, and could afford to buy pretty-well anything that catches my attention, but to be perfectly honest, I have pretty-well everything that I need or wanted.
What I have suits my needs and likes, and when I'm done, I'm sure that most of what I have will be of use or interest to someone, and it will cost them neither an arm nor a leg.
Wayne
rrebell John-NYBW riogrande5761 wrench567 I look for bargains. That way it only costs a couple fingers and a little toe. Pete Thats fine if you are looking for older stuff, but newly produced stuff, which is often much more accurate, just costs more. It totally depends on what you are willing to settle for or what satisfies you. Or as they say "pick your poison". Some poison costs more than other poisions. This is why I'm glad I'm a freelancer. Accurate is whatever I say it is. Generic models work just find for me, even those that are built for real railroads. If I can make up a whole different railroad going through fictional towns, it's not at all a stretch to have non-prototypical details. Also I always see people say this or that is not accurate only to have someone find a pic. I remember one person talking about billboard reefers and saying they were gone by X date because of rules but me peresonally seeing one still in use long after, I mean long.
John-NYBW riogrande5761 wrench567 I look for bargains. That way it only costs a couple fingers and a little toe. Pete Thats fine if you are looking for older stuff, but newly produced stuff, which is often much more accurate, just costs more. It totally depends on what you are willing to settle for or what satisfies you. Or as they say "pick your poison". Some poison costs more than other poisions. This is why I'm glad I'm a freelancer. Accurate is whatever I say it is. Generic models work just find for me, even those that are built for real railroads. If I can make up a whole different railroad going through fictional towns, it's not at all a stretch to have non-prototypical details.
riogrande5761 wrench567 I look for bargains. That way it only costs a couple fingers and a little toe. Pete Thats fine if you are looking for older stuff, but newly produced stuff, which is often much more accurate, just costs more. It totally depends on what you are willing to settle for or what satisfies you. Or as they say "pick your poison". Some poison costs more than other poisions.
wrench567 I look for bargains. That way it only costs a couple fingers and a little toe. Pete
I look for bargains. That way it only costs a couple fingers and a little toe.
Pete
Thats fine if you are looking for older stuff, but newly produced stuff, which is often much more accurate, just costs more. It totally depends on what you are willing to settle for or what satisfies you. Or as they say "pick your poison". Some poison costs more than other poisions.
This is why I'm glad I'm a freelancer. Accurate is whatever I say it is. Generic models work just find for me, even those that are built for real railroads. If I can make up a whole different railroad going through fictional towns, it's not at all a stretch to have non-prototypical details.
Also I always see people say this or that is not accurate only to have someone find a pic. I remember one person talking about billboard reefers and saying they were gone by X date because of rules but me peresonally seeing one still in use long after, I mean long.
The fingers and toes post was meant to be comical.
But I do shop around. I was going to jump on a Bowser RS3 with the train phone antenna with sound but decided to make a truck payment instead. It is just a hobby and want and need are two different things. Like the bumper sticker said, "All I want is a little more than I'll ever have." Such is life. With today's economy my disposable income is not so disposable. Having a fixed income sucks when everything is almost doubled in price in a matter of months. They just raised my property tax just went up $300 per half year. Gotta pay for the golf course that doesn't pay for itself and affordable housing for town employees. Forget the people who actually pay the taxes.
Pete.
John-NYBWThis is why I'm glad I'm a freelancer. Accurate is whatever I say it is. Generic models work just find for me, even those that are built for real railroads. If I can make up a whole different railroad going through fictional towns, it's not at all a stretch to have non-prototypical details.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I have a 140 piece loco roster - purchased at a dollar cost average of $110 each.... Disclaimer - no DCC or sound - don't need that extra cost either.
SeeYou190 richhotrain I spent $56 for a Walthers caboose. $56 for a caboose? All of my cabooses are brass. Ugh! -Kevin
richhotrain I spent $56 for a Walthers caboose. $56 for a caboose?
All of my cabooses are brass.
Ugh!
If you ask me the price of motive power has gone down overall, I mean an NW2 with sound and DCC for $145 is pretty cheap. I have found it harder of late to get deals on rolling stock though, luckily I don't need any but I do keep looking. Reason for some things going up is shipping for sure and few e-bay deals, not just because of wants but the search engine there is totaly broken and their pricing for shipping is wrong more than right.
The price indeed has gone up a lot recently. I bought several Walther AM Fleet at around $32. One week later, the price has changed to $37. Don't know what makes the price change as they are listed on the same vendor's website. But anyway, we pay at the price we feel comfortable to buy what we want. It is hard to compare the price 10 years ago. Also, the locos have more details today than 10 years ago. 10 years ago, almost no locos had ground light. Today, more and more locos have ground light, which is pretty cool...
Jerry