The future of model railroading.

[Sumpter250]

There are more ways than just schools to learn...Andrew

My last tour in the Navy, was as an instructor.
One of the greatest "eye openers" was finding that, a desire to learn had to be "in the student", before any learning could take place. Once someone is "turned on to" learning, they will learn, and be willing to spend their time researching the things that interest them.......it just takes the right someone to "flip that switch" to the ON position.

We don't have too many commercial sailing vessels out there, but there are still those who model them.
The two major world wars are long over, but people still model the machines of those wars.
Trains, are still a major current reality.

Let us all not forget that, We are, in so many different ways, the "future of model railroading".

[MountainMan]

I disagree. We are at best the current group of model railroaders, and deliberately living in the past with what we model. The future of the hobby will belong to a generation that does not revere history as we do, and which lives almost entirely in the present moment.

[RobertInOntario]

There was an article in a MRR mag few years ago that quoted an article from the 1950s. It said that modelers of their day were pretty much only modeling the present day, ie the '50s. The article then went on to say that the modeler own the future will be much more of an historian. Well, they sure got that right! So maybe in our future it will revert back to how it was in the 50s? I still tend to think that nostalgia will continue to play a large role.

[Russ Bellinis]

I disagree. We are at best the current group of model railroaders, and deliberately living in the past with what we model. The future of the hobby will belong to a generation that does not revere history as we do, and which lives almost entirely in the present moment.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mountain Man?

In the modular club there are a few of us who model 1950's transition era, there is one guy who models the Santa Fe between the day after the PA's left into the 1970's, but not the 1980's. He also models the "Kodachrome" units from the short lived "S.houldn't P.aint S.o F.ast" era, as well as modeling a bunch of Penn Central. There is another guy who models anything steam, and a guy who likes 1930's passenger trains, but about 1/2 of the members are modeling the present day. When I go to shows and walk around looking at the modular layouts, I find as many people running the trains of today as are modeling past era's.

I think the biggest reason for the focus on transition era to now is the difficulty in engineering a decent running steam engine. In addition, the difference between a diesel engine on Say the NYC and the Santa Fe is paint and location of a few details. On the other hand during the steam era, each railroad had there own designs for steam engines, and they often didn't resemble each other.

[MountainMan]

I disagree. We are at best the current group of model railroaders, and deliberately living in the past with what we model. The future of the hobby will belong to a generation that does not revere history as we do, and which lives almost entirely in the present moment.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mountain Man?

In the modular club there are a few of us who model 1950's transition era, there is one guy who models the Santa Fe between the day after the PA's left into the 1970's, but not the 1980's. He also models the "Kodachrome" units from the short lived "S.houldn't P.aint S.o F.ast" era, as well as modeling a bunch of Penn Central. There is another guy who models anything steam, and a guy who likes 1930's passenger trains, but about 1/2 of the members are modeling the present day. When I go to shows and walk around looking at the modular layouts, I find as many people running the trains of today as are modeling past era's.

I think the biggest reason for the focus on transition era to now is the difficulty in engineering a decent running steam engine. In addition, the difference between a diesel engine on Say the NYC and the Santa Fe is paint and location of a few details. On the other hand during the steam era, each railroad had there own designs for steam engines, and they often didn't resemble each other.

On the basis of how we model - always in the past - and the lack of interest in niche history evident in the youth of today, who actually receive minimal instruction on broad history, and none on things like the railroads. Whenever and wherever you see railfans watching trains, they are invariably older people, not young people. As for "the trains of today", they are already history and in your past. You can only model what has already been done.

[Green_Elite_Cab]

That's why interest is dying out. History isn't taught all that much in our schools these days.

On the basis of how we model - always in the past - and the lack of interest in niche history evident in the youth of today, who actually receive minimal instruction on broad history, and none on things like the railroads. Whenever and wherever you see railfans watching trains, they are invariably older people, not young people. As for "the trains of today", they are already history and in your past. You can only model what has already been done.

I can't say I agree with you here. There is plenty of interest in niche history, but there is a LOT of niche history, and railroads don't necessarily make a large (or popular) part of that history. I bet you any day of the week, I can find more people who know what a B17 is than an F-unit.

What historically significant things have railroads done in the last 100 years? While they may be responsible for keeping our economy moving, the railroad industry matured from cutting edge to just another type of industry by the first world war.

I don't think Railroads have done anything train related that justifies their mention in the history books. I think we has modelers tend to put greater importance on the trains since they are our interest.



The bottom line is...

Model railroads aren't toys anymore. They are not set up in the storefronts of the toy store on mainstreet anymore. (in fact, one could argue between Walmart and Toy'R'Us, there are fewer mainstreet toystores now than ever). Be honest, when was the last time you saw a trainset for sale anywhere outside of a hobby shop?

On rare occaision, sometimes you can find a Lionel set, and there may be one or two Life-Like sets of the LOWEST POSSIBLE QUALITY in a walmart, Kay-Bee or Toys'R'Us. This brings us to the second problem...

Model trains aren't all that accessible either.

You can't just pick up a model trainset and use it. If that sounds strange to you grizzled veterans of model railroading, try reading the Amazon reviews.

Apparently, EZ track isn't so easy, since many complain that the tabs (railjoiners) don't work or about other issues, such has random uncouplings (mchenry couplers no doubt). Most of the Amazon reviews are by people and families "new" to the hobby, or people who haven't modeled for the past 30 years.

These are not just the cheap Lifelike sets (which incidentally, still cost a bit of money and also cause endless frustration). The higher end Spectrum stuff and even some of the Athearn and Proto sets all come underfire by the uninitiated.

These "new" modelers haven't even begun to even try some of the other basic parts of model railroads (Scenery, structures, etc.).

Its a very VERY intimidating hobby.



By comparison, its a lot cheaper to just go out and have fun with friends, or to play sports or a video game, and you can feel confident in that decision. Trains are a risk to most, and only those inspired to will likely attempt to move forward with the hobby.

[doctorwayne]

..... There is plenty of interest in niche history, but there is a LOT of niche history, and railroads don't necessarily make a large (or popular) part of that history.

I agree, and I think that the hobby may be at it's high-water mark right now, if it isn't already starting to fade. The advent of DCC and the internet brought a flood of renewed interest from both outside and within the hobby, but I don't see it being sustainable. Most of us who are already firmly established within our particular niche will likely persevere, as will some of the newcomers who have recognised the depth of skills and interests engendered by this hobby, but I think that there's a large group which will simply lose interest. The rush of instant gratification fades soon enough, and for many, whose most diligent participation in the hobby is flashing a credit card, other pleasures will beckon soon enough. I thank them for lighting a fire under the manufacturers, who've responded by offering so many great products recently, but when that group leaves, so will the industry's interest.
Leaving with that group will be those who were attracted, like moths to a flame, by, quite literally, the bells and whistles, along with today's version of the baggage handler tossing milk cans from the reefer or the giraffe ducking for the tunnel. How long can that hold ones attention, especially if that was the initial reason for the attraction? Certainly a few will stay, like hamsters on that wheel, but there are newer gadgets, far removed from trains, to draw the eye.
And, of course, those of us who stay will thin out, too, as we all must. I don't think that the hobby will die, but I do think that it will shrink severely in the coming years. Those of you who stay will be involved enough to pass on the skills which will keep this hobby going, albeit on a much smaller scale. This is the medium that will allow you to do so.

Wayne

[MountainMan]

[quote="Green_Elite_Cab"
What historically significant things have railroads done in the last 100 years? While they may be responsible for keeping our economy moving, the railroad industry matured from cutting edge to just another type of industry by the first world war.

I don't think Railroads have done anything train related that justifies their mention in the history books. I think we has modelers tend to put greater importance on the trains since they are our interest. [/quote]

I suppose you mean other than opening up the American continent to settling, mining, industries and devlopment, giving us the term "robber barons", and being crucial to the winning of two world wars? More American young people know that we once used horses and wagons to get around than know anything at all about the railroads.

There was a lengthy period in our history when everything and everybody in the nation either moved by train or didn't move at all. I would say that deserves a mention or two in the history books, right alongside windjammers and steamships.

Of, course, that's just me.

[Green_Elite_Cab]

I suppose you mean other than opening up the American continent to settling, mining, industries and devlopment, giving us the term "robber barons", and being crucial to the winning of two world wars? More American young people know that we once used horses and wagons to get around than know anything at all about the railroads.

There was a lengthy period in our history when everything and everybody in the nation either moved by train or didn't move at all. I would say that deserves a mention or two in the history books, right alongside windjammers and steamships.

Of, course, that's just me.

That doesn't really answer my question. Except for the World wars, all of that was before 100 year ago.

As 100% necessary as railroads were to the country's war effort during those wars, I fail to see how they need more than a short mention in a history book for this. There were plenty of other companies and industries doing there part in the war effort. By the time of the secodn world war, the railroads were already in decline and being overshadowed by trucks and aircraft.

Don't assume that the railroads are left out of the history books and lectures. When it comes to our country's earlier history, there are entire chapters on how the railroads were the catalyst for expansion, both in territory and in industry/transportation. Robber barons and monopolies get long sections of my history text books as well.


However, lets not get to far off focus. Your premise is that the reason there is little interest in railroads (and by extension, model railroading) is that they do not teach.

Even if this history managed to get someone to gain interest in railroads, Railroading itself is vastly different than it was in 1869 when the transcontinental railroad was completed, and even very different than the peak of american railroads in the early 1900s. If anything, the fact that railroads are long past their prime seems to suggest to some people that railroads are outdated and backwards (I do not believe this, but it is a popular opinion).

Any fascination acquired through the old stuff may not translate so readily to more recent railroad topics.

Also, its important to note that there is very little support for those interested in modeling time periods before the 1930s. In fact, model railroading is almost entirely focused on the transition era or the modern day.

Besides, history and model railroading are different subjects. While one must be a little bit of a historian to build a model railroad, I don't see how history will lead to vast improvements in model railroading. There has to be drive to do the activity, not just historical interest.

[MountainMan]

That doesn't really answer my question. Except for the World wars, all of that was before 100 year ago.

As 100% necessary as railroads were to the country's war effort during those wars, I fail to see how they need more than a short mention in a history book for this. There were plenty of other companies and industries doing there part in the war effort. By the time of the secodn world war, the railroads were already in decline and being overshadowed by trucks and aircraft.

Don't assume that the railroads are left out of the history books and lectures. When it comes to our country's earlier history, there are entire chapters on how the railroads were the catalyst for expansion, both in territory and in industry/transportation. Robber barons and monopolies get long sections of my history text books as well.


However, lets not get to far off focus. Your premise is that the reason there is little interest in railroads (and by extension, model railroading) is that they do not teach.

Even if this history managed to get someone to gain interest in railroads, Railroading itself is vastly different than it was in 1869 when the transcontinental railroad was completed, and even very different than the peak of american railroads in the early 1900s. If anything, the fact that railroads are long past their prime seems to suggest to some people that railroads are outdated and backwards (I do not believe this, but it is a popular opinion).

Any fascination acquired through the old stuff may not translate so readily to more recent railroad topics.

Also, its important to note that there is very little support for those interested in modeling time periods before the 1930s. In fact, model railroading is almost entirely focused on the transition era or the modern day.

Besides, history and model railroading are different subjects. While one must be a little bit of a historian to build a model railroad, I don't see how history will lead to vast improvements in model railroading. There has to be drive to do the activity, not just historical interest.

You asked why railroads should have a place in history. History being about the past, I answered as such. apparently you view history much differently. I'm aware of the failure of the industry to support modelers of railroading prior to the 1930's. That's the fault of the manufacturers, not the modelers. There are many who would model if the industry offered the same range of choices. However, since the actual point of your disagreement with my statement remains unclear to me, I see no point in discussing it any farther. I have voiced my opinion, and that's all I set out to do.

[Green_Elite_Cab]

You asked why railroads should have a place in history. History being about the past, I answered as such. apparently you view history much differently. I'm aware of the failure of the industry to support modelers of railroading prior to the 1930's. That's the fault of the manufacturers, not the modelers. There are many who would model if the industry offered the same range of choices. However, since the actual point of your disagreement with my statement remains unclear to me, I see no point in discussing it any farther. I have voiced my opinion, and that's all I set out to do.

I was merely suggesting that poor history classes were not the cause for lack of interests in railroads (and by extension, model railroading). The railroads that made it into the average highschool text book no longer exists, and railroads themselves are very very different today compared to back then.

The reason I asked in the last 100 years, is because thats about the time railroads began to decline (hence, just about zero mention in history textbooks). I didn't think it fair to say that history classes are poor for not mentioning the importance of railroads.

You made the comment that "More American young people know that we once used horses and wagons to get around than know anything at all about the railroads."

What should they know? they are modes of transportation. Its not like railroads don't get pointed out. All the historical points you made are all true, and they all get mentioned in detail in textbooks and lectures.

[MasonJar]

In considering this question, I think one needs to look at the results of the poll for more than just who is "coming up the ranks". Firstly, we are a self selecting group here - there are very few ten-year-olds on the site, so they can't indicate their age in this particular poll, even if they do like trains. Secondly, if we held a poll in grade schools that asked how many ten-year-olds were driving, we might conclude that the future of driving is in peril as there don't seem to be any youngsters doing it. Sure, the older kids (in grade 11 or 12) are doing it, but none of the little kids seem to be interested...

To me, the results of the poll indicate that the hobby is one that appeals to a certain segment. Generally they are:

• Older :o
  
• More stable in terms of living arrangements and employment
  
• Able to focus on something that interests them
  
• Have some disposable income
  
• Have permanent space available

So I don't think that the future of the hobby depends on the teens, who are (generally) none of the things above. It depends on the ability of the current group of modellers to attract their (slightly younger) peers to the hobby. They are the ones with the money, space, interest, and so on that are required.


Andrew

[Green_Elite_Cab]

That seems reasonable to me

[RobertInOntario]

In considering this question, I think one needs to look at the results of the poll for more than just who is "coming up the ranks". Firstly, we are a self selecting group here - there are very few ten-year-olds on the site, so they can't indicate their age in this particular poll, even if they do like trains. Secondly, if we held a poll in grade schools that asked how many ten-year-olds were driving, we might conclude that the future of driving is in peril as there don't seem to be any youngsters doing it. Sure, the older kids (in grade 11 or 12) are doing it, but none of the little kids seem to be interested...

To me, the results of the poll indicate that the hobby is one that appeals to a certain segment. Generally they are:

• Older :o
  
• More stable in terms of living arrangements and employment
  
• Able to focus on something that interests them
  
• Have some disposable income
  
• Have permanent space available

So I don't think that the future of the hobby depends on the teens, who are (generally) none of the things above. It depends on the ability of the current group of modellers to attract their (slightly younger) peers to the hobby. They are the ones with the money, space, interest, and so on that are required.
Andrew

Exactly! Well said. How many teens/20-somethings (who might be in high school or university, starting careers, etc.) have the space, money & time to invest in something so specific as MRR?

[Tyson Rayles]

"I think the biggest reason for the focus on transition era to now is the difficulty in engineering a decent running steam engine. In addition, the difference between a diesel engine on Say the NYC and the Santa Fe is paint and location of a few details. On the other hand during the steam era, each railroad had there own designs for steam engines, and they often didn't resemble each other."

I diragree with this. Steam engines all look alike, yeah some are longer or shorter or have more wheels or less wheels but they are all black and therefor all look alike. That point was driven home to me by people visiting a Lionel train museum I work at. In talking with them I was amazed by the fact that the most of them assumed that any engine that was black was a steam engine. Diesels took a dull somewhat depressing industry and turned it into glorious technicolor with their rainbow of paint jobs. Most people don't notice the details only the big picture and their eye isn't attracted to a black steam loco if there is a deisel parked nearby with the BNSF pumpkin or Seaboard citrus or whatever paint sceme on it.