Me Only

I model diesel because that is what I grew up with. Steam was gone from the rails when I watched my first trains - FM H16-44's working the locals. Steam for me are museum pieces or excursion trains. Very cool but just machinery.

Steam

Model manufacturers abandoned eras prior to WW1 (actually the depression) about 30-40 years ago.  The last new steam engine produced by a major manufacturer that was oriented to the pre WW1 era was the Roundhouse  4-4-0.  There hasn't been a new wood underframe freight car brought out in plastic in 35 years or more.

What steam is being produced now is really big stuff that looks impressive but is really impractical for the average model railroad.  40 years ago most steam was 4-6-0's, 4-6-2's, 2-8-0's and 2-8-2's, average driver size was 63".  Now most steamers being produced are either articulated or have drivers over 70".

Also there has been a huge shift kitbashing and scratchbuilding.  Both are on the decline.  Hardly any traditional model manufacturers produce kits any more, its all RTR.  Its really hard to kitbash a car that come glued together.  Scratchbuilding is down a large part to the fact that overall interest in using tools is down.  I took both metal and wood shop in junior high school.  None of my kids took a single shop class in a collective 18 years of junior high and high school.

The good news is that there are several quality producers of laser cut and resin kits.  And with the advances in plastics and resin, scratchbuilding cars can be easier than ever.

Considering that 30 years ago most detailed steamers were brass, the modern plastic steamers are as good or better detailed than plastic and comparably priced (as long as you want a really big steam engine.)

Like Alan

I model diesel because while I was hanging around the tracks as a kid (late 50's & 60's) that's what I saw.  I do love steam and on my railroad I have a little 4-4-0 steam (sound & DCC) excursion train with two open style cars and a caboose that i love to take for the a few laps around the layout.  I do believe that they are much more interesting to watch than diesels.

BTW, my favorite diesels are the "automotive styled" units that were designed by auto engineers such as the E and F units - love those front ends!

Rick

availability

Part of the reason for the growing popularity of modeling the contemporary era is that modern equipment is much more available now.  The most current locomotives such as EMD's SD70ace and GE's ES44-AC are produced in model form much sooner after the prototype appears than used to be the case.  In the past if you wanted to model a modern diesel you often needed a Rail Power Products shell and a whole lot of Cannon & Co parts to get there.  Relatively new companies such as Exactrail and BLMA are producing extremely high quality modern rolling stock and even those that have been around for ages such as Athearn have more modern equipment available that ever before.

RTR equipment is popular because high quality models are available and they save time.  Details such as wire grab irons, coupler cut bars, etched walkways and brake gear that previously all had to be added with extra parts are now standard on a lot of the quality RTR equipment.  A lot of Model Railroaders have a time budget for the hobby since they also have jobs and families so being able to purchase a great looking car that often only needs some weathering before it can hit the rails is a big plus.  For instance if I were to try and scratchbuild or even kitbash an entire train worth of equipment it would probably take me 6 months if not more.  At the end of the 6 months I could run the equipment I just build on my bare plywood layout because I had no time for any other aspect of the hobby.  With the RTR equipment I can spend a good portion of that 6 months building benchwork, scenery, wiring, and running trains.

I think steam may seem to offer "a lot more variety in size, shape, configuration and equipment options" because that is what you are familiar with.  Someone who isn't interested in the nuances between diesels is likely to say something along the lines of 'all GP40s look the same' just like how to some people a lot of steam engines look the same.  It all depends on what you are interested in.  For instance, going back to my GP40 example, I find it interesting that late model Rio Grande GP40-2s had straight sills and a late model style angled blower housing while people into steam would likely not find this interesting at all.

As far as a modern era layout becoming outdated in 5 years I'm not sure this is true.  The prototype railroads don't throw out all their equipment when new stuff comes along.  Those GEVOs will still be around in 5 years, just likely a bit dirtier.  Well known modeler Pelle Soeborg, who models modern era, adds extra weathering to his equipment after it's been around for a while to simulate it aging.  He even went so far as to repaint his model Denny's when they changed their corporate scheme.  While it is popular to model 'always modern' that doesn't always have to be the case either.  You can model modern but still set a time period for your layout.  I for instance decided to set my layout in 2006 which is just as stuck in time as one set in 1940.

I think it's great that we have more options in the hobby than ever before  and I am sure you will enjoy yourself no matter which era you decide to focus on 

The shift for me was from Modern to Steam!

Hello RAGC,

   The shift is probably due to the fact that most modelers never grew up seeing steam.  You mention getting back into the hobby after many years away and I was wondering what era would you like to model?  There is a definite array of modern equipment on the shelves of todays hobby shops but, there is also a good amount of available steam models that run just as well. Steam era freight cars are also available sometimes just not as noticeable in ads. There are many models available of the smaller steam from 0-6-0  2-8-0  0-8-0 4-6-0  2-8-2.  Bachman announced a new model of small steam in the form of an ALCO 2-6-0 that I look forward to.

 I don't think that scratch building or kitbashing are totally dying.  I just don't think enough people are sharing what they might be working on allowing others to say hey I could do that too. It is probably also tied into the amount of time we have for modeling in between the rest of everyday life.  The quality of structures and cars being sold now are also a reason that scratching and bashing are not done as much.  You can put a quality model  onto the layout with little effort knowing that you have that quality and realism without the hours of tedious work that it use to take to create the same model.  

Being a very young modeler in my early 30's never growing up seeing the steam like so many others also state,       I decided to model the steam era.  I originally started out modeling the late 70's and early 80's and then completely switched to modeling the steam diesel transition era.  The decision was based on being able to fit more freight cars onto the layout because of the shorter size and a couple books that captivated my imagination and curiosity into the steam era.  The other reason was the wide range of odd freight equipment that wasn't standardized due to all the railroad companies having thoughts on own designs and needs.  

 Scratch building, Kitbashing, and putting kits together to me are very enjoyable and, there are many sources available for this.  Just because its not as noticeable or advertised as much as the ready to run it is out there for those that still enjoy this part of the hobby.  

 The decision is always up to the individual and what you would like to model.  

https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/carbondale-walpole-valley-railroad-modeling-the-dh-rutland-12186263

https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/delaware-hudson-consol-scratchbashes-12186222

Greg

Very interesting!

A couple of the points made in the responses are things that did not occur to me, but then I'm not that bright.  I am one of those who spends so much time building that my layout is still one unwired module in my yet-to-be-finished basement train room!  In fact I have decided that the three steamers I have unbuilt will wait until after that project; otherwise it'll never get done!

One point made I had noticed, but not really considered:  yes!  all the steam stuff being made is huge!  I like the small locomotives, such as my old Roundhouse kit oldtimers, and my largest are 4-6-2 Pacifics (and an unbuilt Bowser USRA Mountain) because I don't have the real estate to run trains that long, or that need such wide radiuses.  I had noticed everything new I saw was mostly articulateds but never gave it much thought in terms of not fitting the average person's layout.

It's a shame if nothing is being made predating WWI.  The small cars and locos and the 'character' of the old stuff is priceless, not to mention the colors used in that era's equipment.  I guess some of that color comes back on the diesel paint schemes, so that's good.

I grew up in diesel times, but my first toy train, a Marx set, was steam.  I still have it (and it still runs!).  I played so much with it all my childhood that I guess steam just etched itself in my mind as the "fun" way to do model railroading.  When I picked up the hobby 25 years ago I never thought the diesel offerings were all that interesting, although I do own an F-7A and B.  My current layout plans are for a 1947 date so I can run that one diesel with the rest of my steam, and add some more vintage diesel if I feel it is right.

Anyway, the responses show me that I am not imagining things: there is a shift to diesel, to be expected because of the remoteness of the steam era, and apparently being helped along by the manufacturer's choices.  I wonder if, like for everything else in life, the pendulum will swing back.  After all, there are probably more sailing ship modelers than steam or diesel ship modelers today... I think...

Keep em' coming!

Greg, you replied while I was

Greg, you replied while I was writing my first response.  I guess I answered some of your questions already, and your responses parallel mine in many ways.  

I am happy to see some of the younger people still share my interests. I am in my mid 50's.  I do not own a single piece of locomotive equipment that is new, though: I have recently built several "new" models from when Roundhouse and Tyco/Mantua still made them: you can find them in the big auction site at reasonable prices sometimes, and I still have a Bowser and a HOn3 Shay waiting for me since I bought them in the 1980's, mint in their boxes!  Most of my rolling stock dates back to the same time, including my passenger Pullmans from Athearn, all of them still boxed...

Diesel Era for Me

My perspective only...

I model the diesel era since that's what I grew up with.  Steam-era 40-foot cars, steam locomotives, even F-units don't seem like real railroading to me since I never saw them in service.  I model 1978-1982, so my era is frozen in time just like a 40s-50s layout.  It's separated from the modern day by more years than from a transition era layout too.  I do have a side-line interest in 40s narrow gauge modeling, but pre-70s standard gauge holds no interest for me at all - it's not what I grew up to recognize as railroading.  I "need" mostly 50-foot and larger cars with running boards removed, post-steam-era paint schemes, roller bearing trucks predominating, consolidated stencils that became mandated in that era, and a variety of first- and second-generation diesels.  I don't care much for "one of a kind" equipment when I'm trying to make cars and locos feel like they're interchangeable parts of big-time railroading, too many "individuals" detract from the mission of a few cars standing in for many.

Another issue with modeling steam is that the locomotives were mostly specific to their own roads.  You can't just pick up a GP9 and detail it for that road's order, you instead may have a huge project on your hands modeling a specific class of steamer.  Freelancers have it easier, but I'd wager the trend toward diesels goes hand-in-hand with the rise of prototype modeling, since it's much easier to get a prototypical fleet with diesels for most roads. 

The western/logging themed layouts that used to be so popular were likely so because the available models went along with them, and you had a much harder time modeling diesels or class ones accurately.  People did what came easy then too, and followed trends just like today.  The V&O Story in "Railroad Model Craftsman"  changed attitudes about modeling typical railroading, so that played a part too.

You mentioned availability of ready-to-run, but that has made steam modeling a LOT easier as well, so I wouldn't blame that for the shift.  The typical layout I see in my travels is still transition era too.  I see relatively fewer 60s-80s or present day layouts.

Good Points

"Another issue with modeling steam is that the locomotives were mostly specific to their own roads. "

Which is what makes it more interesting for me, but I am basically a builder more than an operator by nature...  but I agree with you that prototype modeling is a LOT easier in diesel.  Good points!

​I hope this subject is not an inflammatory one: I am an amateur photographer and, in those forums, the argument between the film camera and the digital camera people is fierce, and can get violent!

Variety and Change

There's a lot of subtle variation between diesels as well. Small production changes, optional features and then road specific details and options.

Steam does have all those interesting moving bits and piping exposed though.

So does one frozen in 1970, 1990 or even 2010. Trying to always stay current instead of choosing a particular year or timeframe (whatever that time frame is, whether 1885 or 1985) will naturally required constant updating. Some people have done it. But modelling "modern" could also simply be pegging your time frame as the early 2000s, which today is modern, but in a few years will be more historical. 20 years ago, modelling 1980 would have been "modern".

Yep, but doesn't necessarily have to be steam prototypes to be true. There's variation in both modern and old equipment, building or modifying your own equipment is a great way to get unique equipment on your layout, but isn't constrained by era.

So far its diesel 4, steam 2

So far its diesel 4, steam 2 with 2 abstentions.  The 2 steams also have diesel in their rosters...

Diesel Era

Well, to follow up to my post, I model the 1970s-80s. I definately understand the attraction of an earlier era, although I'm young enough that I can count the number of operating steam engines I've seen one probably one hand.

Steam to diesel

I also grew up with diesel, Steam engines are wonderfull creatures but I cant tell all of the subtle differences in steam engines from one road to another. To me they are all black. I appreciate the differences between units but the research can be a new career. Diesels may be similar but give me all of those paint schemes anytime.

I model 1953....

...for several reasons INCLUDING that it allows me to model NYC Steam! Though I also like 1st Gen Diesel equipment as well.  1953 offers many things to model, including (though much less than in its hey day) passenger and Mail & Express trains, as well as being able to model smaller 1-2 car delivery businesses & industries.  The freight cars are shorter as well, which allows to have a reasonably long train look actually longer.  With anything say post-1990, to me, if you are modeling "mainline Class 1 railroading" requires a extremely long mainline since pulling even 20 Autoracks seems rather short to me.  This is why I sold off all my modern equipment years ago because I came to the conclusion that I couldn't model such an era effectively to my satisfaction.  For those that model it, that's fine by me, i'm not saying it's wrong or it can not be done.  It's just not my cup of tea.

Ken L

I agree

My 100% agreement, Ken.  Same here, but with Southern Railways, Georgia RR, and Central of GA RR!

Time marches on

My modeling plans and interests were contemporary when I formed them in the 1970s -- the Union Pacific in southeastern Idaho.  Now I'm modeling the railroading of 40 years ago.  I suspect this happens to quite a few people. Except Bernie Kempinski, maybe.

Then there's the Austrian narrow gauge . . .

Size and space

kleaverjr said: With anything say post-1990, to me, if you are modeling "mainline Class 1 railroading" requires a extremely long mainline since pulling even 20 Autoracks seems rather short to me.  This is why I sold off all my modern equipment years ago because I came to the conclusion that I couldn't model such an era effectively to my satisfaction.

Modeling post-1990 US railroads is the equivalent of modeling the '40s and '50s in S gauge, given the size of the equipment and the radius requirements. The old space concepts don't work so well. Ken seems to have figured this out.

Time marches on...

I am in the same class as Joe Brugger... My modeling era was contemporary when I developed my "general plan" for my modeling, also the 1970's. Now it is 30 to 40 years in the past.

Ken Glover, Chief Engineer, Kansas Pacific Railway

Another Diesel guy

And another 70s/80s guy.  I was born in '72 and took my first train ride in '74 (only have the pictures to prove it, not the memory).  I just don't "get" steam.  I find it neat, interesting and wouldn't mind having a Royal Hudson excursion train on my layout, but I just prefer the colourful diesels to the plain, ordinary steamers.  

And why not have a conversation about this?  Most here can express their thoughts ON THE TOPIC without getting into heated discussions.  That's what a forum is for, right?

Steam guy

Well, I figure I better jump in here; so we're not overwhelmed by the 70-80's viewpoint.  I was born in 1946, and remember well, steam power going by our neighborhood in coastal Ventura County when I was a little kid.  (Steam stopped on the SP in 1958).  My biggest/best memory was riding in the back seat of our family car up the coast, while my dad did his best to stay right along side of an SP Cab Forward.  

I had one steamer, a Varney 10 wheeler kit, that has never been completed (to this day).  What I had that would run was F units and GP's, with 40' frt. cars.   So, my prototype then was late 50's and early 60's, so that's what is still in my mind.

The appeal of steam vs. diesel:  the sounds and smells of a steam loco starting a heavy train is awesome.  It's just not the same with diesels.  I think the nearest diesels come in my experience is in the Tehachapi mts. and standing trackside while 4 SD's in run eight go by at 11 mph, pulling for all their worth, followed in a few minutes by 4 more SD's as mid-train helpers.  And you can hear them for a half an hour.

The steam clincher was when I joined a live steam railroad club.  Once you get your hands on the throttle, and feel the power, and get that steam in your veins, you're hooked.  You'll never go back.

And a significant reason why I chose 1958 for my railroad was so I could run trains with 40' and 50' freight cars, with smaller locos (diesel and steam), because I have a bedroom, not a basement, and I have 20-24" radius curves, with no room for larger.  That new, big equipment would not look right.

I don't see it as Steam v Diesel

I too was born in 1946. I lived not far from the IC mainline north of Memphis, TN from age 7 to 18. I saw lots of steam on the IC freights in the mid 50's. I chose to model the 70's because it was an important time in my life, not because diesels are better or easier than steam.

To each their own.

Ken Glover, Chief Engineer, Kansas Pacific Railway

MRH 2011 Reader Survey results - Favorite era

We still have to compile and publish the final results of the 2011 MRH Reader Survey, but we had over 4400 responses, which is almost 10% of our total monthly web audience. Statistically, this means we have less than a +/- 2.5% error in the results, which means the results do a good job of representing our readership's interests. As to how well this represents the hobby population at large, that's hard to say.

The steam-to-diesel era specifically leads the pack by a large margin. However if you aggregate the responses according to some general categories, you get these results:

• Steam only: 35.7% (1949 and earlier + no preference)
• Diesel only: 45.2% (1960 and later + no preference)
• Modern: 31.5% (1980 and later + no preference)
• Steam-to-diesel: 48.6% (steam-to-diesel + no preference)

These alternative aggregations show that diesel-only readers out-rank steam-only readers by a fair margin. Taken this way, it should come as no surprise that diesel locos outnumber steam models from manufacturers.

Also it's worth noting almost a third of our readers are interested in the modern non-roofwalk era.

Still, roughly half our readers will like steam-to-diesel era content if we include no preference in the mix.

There it is!

Very interesting, and a definite answer to my original question!  

A different way of looking at it (and the way I prefer to look) is that roughly half of the respondents prefer to have some steam equipment in their layouts.  If the division is along a 50% line, and less steam equipment is being made, then cost, will help drive layouts away from steam.  That, combined with the "childhood memory" factor repeated in the responses to this thread above and the ease of introducing DCC electronics in diesel cabs over the cramped confines of a steam boiler, may mean that, as in the real world, steam is seeing its final days in the hobby!  

Maybe 30 years from now layouts running steam will only be visible in museums!

HO steam locomotives, and the

HO steam locomotives, and the steam era is my preference.  I am still working on my layout in a

20'X24' double garage with a 8'X24' shop to the rear and consider it to be a work in process. 

The shop will have a couple N scale trains that duplicate HO scale trains that run on the main

layout.  The N scales in the shop would have access to the main layout via tunnels cut into the

wall.

An HO scale train would enter a tunnel, and after an appropriate time the N scale duplicate

would appear exiting a tunnel above, and to the rear of the layout, giving a forced perspective

to observer.

With about 25% of my locomotives being articulated, the radius of the curves on the main lines

will run from 36" to 48".  Almost all of the large prototype articulated locomotives had the rear

engine fastened solidly to the frame.  The brass models were built with that in mind,  but the

newer plastic articulated, and some of the newer cast locomotives articulated models allow both

engines to pivot allowing them to take turns with a radius of as little as 18".  That allows them

easier to be used on smaller layouts. 

In my eyes they just do not appear right because the front of the locomotive swings out way

too far on the smaller 18" curves.  It does however allow most of the currently manufactured

articulated locomotives models ( Big Boys, Challengers, Yellowstones, ect., ect.) to run

on most smaller layouts.

In my youth I had Lionel and Marx O scale 3 rail trains, Plus an American Flier S Scale.

About a year and a half ago I was trying to locate some Christmas decorations that had

been misplaced when I ran across my late father's HO Rivarossi UP Challenger locomotive.

It reminded me of the enjoyment that model trains gave me in my youth so I re-entered the

hobby again full force.  I have spent more on my reacquired hobby than a new car would

have cost during that 1 1/2 year, but I am enjoying my re-found hobby immensely.  My

real expense has been the brass locomotives and cars that I have acquired. 

They are not cheap.

There will be one Diesel locomotive set that will run on the layout---a circa 1947 PA-1/PB.

The old timers considered them as "honorable steam locomotives" because they smoked

worse that the true steam locomotives until the turbo-chargers attained enough RPMs.

I am now 66, and was away from the hobby for over 50 years.