Here are some topics I feal should be discussed.
Of ALL the model RRs out there, How many actualy use some sort of remote control?
I think less than 10%.
How many buy an engine with a sound system other than a bell & whistle.
Again less than 10%.
Why?
Lack of knowledge?
Fear?
Money?
Trust?
“…'cause I really want to know…”
eZAK;
I think it’s all of the reasons that you list plus the
fact that with the new-tech there is a lot of planned
obsolesence, so what is new today is old tomorrow
and no longer supported. Just like computer gear.
Other problems are reliablility and repairability.
The old-tech is much easier to maintain and doesn’t
need repair as often. Parts for 50+ year old trains
are still available and the “average bear” can do his
own repairs. There is already availability problems
with replacement parts for a lot of the newer sound
boards and such. What will things be like 30 years
from now?
Maybe in another decade we will know for sure. Maybe
in another decade the fragility issues with the new-tech
electronics will be resolved. After all, it took awhile to
make a reliable E-Unit “back in the day”. Meanwhile I
think people will tend to stay with what works in the
long run. Cost is a consideration as well. The new
technology is pricey.
Pat,
I can’t speak to the issue of remotes, except to say that everyone I know around here with a permanent layout has either TMCC, DCS, or both. Same goes for my H.O. brethren.
As far as buying engines with or without sounds, I defy anyone to find many engines without full sound packages. Sure there’s Williams. And LIONEL has those two 0-6-0’s coming out, and a little starter set 4-4-2, but even my kids’ NYC Flyer has full-blown RailSounds, as do most every engine from both LIONEL and M-T-H.
As for me? I won’t buy an engine without full sounds, TMCC, and Odyssey. I did just buy the LIRR Camelback, which doesn’t have Odyssey, but only after calling T.A.S. to find out if they had a cruise up-grade coming out. It will be out this Fall, and they’ll also be able to up-grade my “Baby” Hudson and K4s.
I’m not a big “Techno” kind of guy. Heck, we just bought our first CD player last Christmas! But I want my trains to have “all the bells and whistles”!!!
Jon [8D]
For me, I won’t buy an engine with remote control. One reason is I don’t have the money too. I love the detail, but can’t afford it. Plus, my layout isn’t that big, a 14x9 “L” shaped layout. Another reason is, in my opinion, they are way overpriced. There are alot of people that will pay $1500 for an engine, and God bless you, but my own personal boycott will remain in effect, even if I could afford them. And who knows, in a few years the prices may come down, hopefully because of my boycott [:D], and alot more people can enjoy these high tech engines.
As far a sound systems, if its in there, great, if not, oh well. I can enjoy my trains however they look, sound or smell. I’m not greedy. If it runs, myself and my 2 year old daughter will get plenty of joy out of them.
Ezak, when you say “all model RR” are you refering to N, HO, and S gauge as well as O gauge? Or O gauge alone?
Right now, I’m buying about 75 % all sounds and remote operation and 25% not. Most of the 25% will be converted. I’m looking for certain road names and units. They are not all in sound and DCS or TMCC. Was going to convert some of my older [late 70’s to mid 80’s] Lionel engines but may not now. We’ll see. Running remote sure is a lot easier. $$$ are a factor so I will go slow.
I think Ezak is a little off on his assessment of the number of people using “remote”. I would put the % more around 50% to 60%. And for those not within the 50 to 60 range, I would say about 50% of them would convert given the money.
There will always be a segment of users that prefer to stick to the tradinational (old fashion) method of model railraoding. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as you enjoy running trains.
I’m about where Chief is on this. Enjoying best of both worlds.
Last year, when I first got into the hobby, I had heard a statistic from Lionel quoted which put the penetration of command control into O gauge at 20%. Later in the year, around Christmas time, I had heard that Lionel had revised those numbers to 40%.
I agree, the penetration has to be in the 50 to 60% range at this point.
Granted, not everyone wants command control, and just about everyone starting out doesn’t know it exists. I think that will change with time, as everything changes.
Regarding the price of command control equipped engines, not every engine with command control goes for $1500. I believe the lowest price for a command equipped engine that I saw in the latest Lionel catalog was in the $300 - $400 range. And the trend seems to be for the prices to decrease lately.
Tony
This is a topic that we’ve included on our “paper” surveys going back five or more years. Our most recent paper survey has it as roughly 60% conventional and 40% command. Command growth has been very slow.
IMO slow growth partly due to non-aggressive marketing. Hobby shops could set up hands-on demos for customers. Sure it would be a hassle, but would result in ROI. Same for shows.
I am too afraid that I would probably burn them out. The boards are very delicate. I think someone said in a topic a while ago it is nice until the novelty of the thing wore off. I am not sure who it was but he said he only uses it when he wants to show off to visitors. I bought a new set but I probably won’t make use of all the technology it can offer me. I agree that all of the four that ezak mentioned are resons why my trains will remain simple.
Well, I got a late start and believe it or not, I got two NS SD90’s PS2 one for $225 [including shipping] and the other for $200 [including shipping]. I did the locator on MTH and they gave me the hobby shops that had the units. Two had sold out and two had one each [1 in NY and 1 in AL]. Mighty cheap for PS2. Look and shop. There are some bargins sitting on the shelf. I saw one in an add in CTT for NS PS2 diesel for $219. Mighty tempting.
NYCentralPA:
The electronics in command engines are, in my opinion, no more delicate than the electronics in any other electronic appliance. The difference is that trains run in an environment where it’s possible for them to be subjected to currents flowing through the circuits in a manner not intended by the circuit’s designer.
This also happens with all kinds of home electronics that are hit by voltage spikes caused by lightning strikes on the nearby power lines. The solution to this problem is the surge suppressor. The solution to this same command equipped engine problem is also surge suppression.
In this case, the suprressor goes between the track & transformer & is activated in the case where a train derails. I don’t have any statics for you, but I’ve read many anecdotes on the OGR TMCC forum of people who were having boards fry out implementing surge suprression & no longer having engines fry.
The theory behind these devices is sound. You can get ready made supressors from Scotts Odds & Ends for reasonable prices, especially considering the cost of the locos that are often command equipped.
At any rate, I’ve gone the TMCC route and I enjoy it.
Tony
AC Motors & Eunits FOREVER!!!
I posted a very similar comment on a thread reguarding digital F3’s vs postwar F3’s a few weeks ago. It seems as if this might become a often discussed topic for quite some time.
Basiclly, the end result that we all look for is a locomotive pulling cars down the track. There are some of us who pruchase and operate big buget models that involve a number of interconnected electrical boxes and handheld units that eventually end up as two wires connected to 3 rail track providing signals and power from which the model uses to operate. Then there are those of us who purchase and operate modest budget models that involve one or two electrical boxes that make a two wire connection to 3 rail track that provide signals and power from which the model uses to operate. The end result is the same, just the process is quite different. Personally, as a proud BLET member, I can honsetly say that I prefer to see a locomotive operated hands on instead of by a remote control box. (Both in real ife and on plywood!!)
I do belive that durability is an issue that should be taken more seriously by the model railroad community as a whole. Modern electronics have yet to prove themselves over the test of time. The oldest railsounds eqipped locomotive is only 14 tears old, compared to my oldest locomotive which is 58 years old (and would put most any new locomotive to shame!) From pesonal experience, my first “modern” model no longer works, and it is very frustrating to think that a manufactuer would produce a product that could not last 5 years of irregular use yet charge $400.00 as a retail price. Very sad.
The manufactuers can help out the remote control situation considerably though, just by focusing a little attention on two words: standardization and cost. I do applaud most of the manufacuers for making an ef
Actually Notch (and I agree with you on many things) I don’t think the polarization is any worse today… there have always been differences between train guys. Being a “collector” was the BIG thing 15 years ago. Today, operators get much more respect not only from the companies, but from the collectors as well.
I think some of the polarization we witness in the hobby is due to this right here… the internet, and the fact we can so freely communicate our feelings on the hobby with others. As with anything in this human life, there is good and bad. Most of us would agree, we learn much, can promote and share the hobby through these train forums. BUT we can also get pretty vocal and opinionated on our wishes and wants… and like many other internet chat places, it’s anonymous… meaning it’s a little easier to hurl an insult or two at someone you don’t know at all. As it is likewise as easy to get hurt over something someone else said that wasn’t meant to be hurtful.
All that said, (even if money wasn’t tight for me) I prefer traditional control. It’s more affordable and more reliable as far as I’m concerned. I can fix the stuff myself and I still have fun with it. But that’s me. And I respect guys like Jon and the Chief for having as much fun with their trains as I do, albeit in a different manner.
On the issue of “control” though, I’ve also read that where the appearance of “command” sales looks strong is with engines. I’ve been told most folks are seeking locos that have the option of being command operated, even though they may not be using a command system to run them. I guess they just want the option to be there for them in the future.
NO matter how you run the trains, it suppose to be about fun. And if folks are having fun running trains, I’m in no position to judge them on how they “control” that fun.
One other quick idea for advancing sales of TMCC and DCS. (perhaps this already is being done?):
On the LIonel and MTH websites, make available a simulation that users can run with their key and/or mouse. Not the real thing, but a small taste, perhaps?
Seems like the biggest thing holding back increase in CC is lack of testing the stuff. Generally speaking, when users try CC out, many, if not most, become hooked. The key, then, like the auto salesmen, is to get them to the show room and get them to do some test drives.
Basically that simple.
Dave V
Coil Couplers ( www.coilcouplers.com ) has such a TMCC simulation as David mentioned above, as well as a number of tutorials.
I use TMCC mainly, and have no intentions of going back. My roster still leans toward conventional, with 6 of my 10 engines being conventional, and my most recently purchased engine a conventional engine(Lionel 675). My command engines, overall, though, get more run time, and I am currently planning to buy another command engine in the next few weeks(K-line Allegheny).
I have yet to have any sort of catastrophic failure of any of my command engines. In fact, I’ve only had to replace two parts in them. One was a mechanical switch tied in with the Railsounds system, and the other from a bad batch of boards from the factory. Both of these were in the same K-line engine, and both were replaced by K-line at no cost, even outside the warranty period.
I have been running command control since December of 2002. My first TMCC engine was a conversion of one the following February. My next three were aquired in March of 2003, December of 2003, and February of 2004.
As well, the latest additions to my roster have been conventional, primarily Williams, due to the high price of CC. For example, I picked up a beautiful 2-motored Williams U-boat for about the price of an MTH dummy U-boat.